The Gazette 1996

GAZETTE

AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 1996

CONSUMER CONTRACTS

MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS

18. Though he allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their claim on the basis that the defendants had submitted to the jurisdiction of the Irish courts pursuant to Article 18. 19. Kalfelis -v-Schroder. Munchmeyer. Hengst & Co (Case 189/87) [ 1988] ECR 5565. 20. [ 1993] 2 IR 359. 21. (Case 89/91), 19 January 1993. 22. [1986] QB 33. * Education Officer, Law Society of Ireland, formerly Lecturer in Law, University of Leeds. Compensation Fund - Payments Out July 1996 T h e f o l l o w i ng c l a im a m o u n ts w e r e a d m i t t ed by the C o m p e n s a t i on F u n d C o mm i t t ee a nd a p p r o v ed f o r p a y m e nt b y t he C o u n c il at its m e e t i ng in J u ly 1996.

1 A c o n s u m er c an sue either in the p l a ce w h e r e he is d o m i c i l ed or in the c o u r ts of the d o m i c i le of the o t h er party ( A r t i c l es 13-15). In Shearson Lehman Hutton -v- TVB 2 ' the C o u rt h e ld that w h e re a p e r s on w a s a c t i ng in the e x e r c i se of his p r o f e s s i on he is n ot a c o n s u m e r. C e r t a in c o u r ts are g i v en e x c l u s i ve j u r i s d i c t i on in p r o c e e d i n gs c o n c e r n i ng in rem rights in i mm o v a b le p r o p e r t y. T h e l e a d i ng c a se is Rosier -v- Rottwinker. A n a g r e e m e nt w a s d r a wn u p b e t w e en t w o G e r m a n s, c o n c e r n i ng a h o l i d ay villa in Italy. C o u l d t he G e r m a n c o u r ts entertain a c l a im c o n c e r n i ng d a m a g e a nd a r r e a rs of r e n t? T h e C o u rt of J u s t i ce h e ld that the Italian c o u r ts h ad j u r i s d i c t i on as it c o n c e r n ed rights in rem o v e r i mm o v a b le p r o p e r t y. Article 16(2) p r o v i d es that the c o u r ts of the c o n t r a c t i ng state in w h i ch a c o m p a n y, legal p e r s on o r a s s o c i a t i on h as its seat h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n, "in p r o c e e d i n gs w h i ch h a v e as their o b j e ct the validity of the c o n s t i t u t i o n, the nullity or the d i s s o l u t i on of c o m p a n i es or o t h er legal p e r s o ns or a s s o c i a t i o ns of natural o r legal p e r s o n s, o r t he d e c i s i o ns of their o r g a n s ". EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION COMPANIES

A c o n n e c t ed c l a i m, w h i ch w o u ld n o r m a l ly fall w i t h in the j u r i s d i c t i on of a n o t h er c o u r t, c an be d e t e r m i n ed by the c o u rt b e f o re w h o m the m a in action is b r o u g h t. A r t i c le 6( 1) p r o v i d es that c o- d e f e n d a n ts m a y b e s u ed in the d o m i c i le of any one of them. In Kalfelis -v- Schroder t he C o u rt h e ld that f or A r t i c le 6( 1) to a p p ly t h e re m u s t b e a c o n n e c t i on b e t w e en the a c t i o ns b r o u g ht a g a i n st e a c h of t he d e f e n d a n t s. Gannon -v- B&I Steam Packet Company Ltd and Ors d e m o n s t r a t es that the Irish c o u r ts r e f u se to a l l ow Article 6 ( 1) to b e u s ed as a p r o c e d u r al d e v i c e. T h e plaintiff h a d b e en i n j u r ed in a r o ad traffic a c c i d e nt in E n g l a n d. S h e a r g u ed that t he first d e f e n d a nt h a d a c o n t r a c t u al liability to h er in relation to its selection, c h o i ce a n d i n s t r u c t i on of the c o a ch a nd d r i v er a n d that the C o u r ts s h o u ld h e ar h er c l a im a g a i n st the c o m p a n y w h i ch o w n e d the c o a ch a nd the o w n e rs of the lorry w i th w h i ch the c o a ch collided, u n d e r A r t i c le 6( 1). T h e S u p r e me C o u rt h e ld that t h e re w a s n o g r o u n ds f or s u g g e s t i ng that t he selection, c h o i ce a nd instruction of the c o a ch a n d d r i v er h ad a n y c a u s a t i ve link w i th the a c c i d e n t. It c o n c l u d ed that the sole r e a s on f or b r i n g i ng an a c t i on a g a i n st B & I w a s so that the o t h er d e f e n d a n ts c o u ld be j o i n ed in u n d er A r t i c le 6( 1) a n d the j u r i s d i c t i on of the E n g l i sh c o u r ts o u s t e d. T h e C o u rt r e f u s ed to a l l ow this. In t he c a s e of i n s u r a n ce a nd c o n s u m er c o n t r a c t s, s p e c i al p r o t e c t i on w a s t h o u g ht to be n e c e s s a ry f or the w e a k er party. T h i s led to the i n t r o d u c t i on of t w o sets of s e p a r a te j u r i s d i c t i o n al rules. A r t i c l es 7 - 1 2 deal w i th i n s u r a n c e. A r t i c le 8 g i v es a w i d e c h o i ce to the p o l i cy h o l d er w h o c an s ue w h e re he is r e s i d e nt o r in the d o m i c i le of the insurer. T h is rule w a s i n c l u d ed as m a n y i n s u r a n ce c o m p a n i es o p e r a te o n a trans- n a t i o n al basis. A n i n s u r er w h o is not d o m i c i l ed in a c o n t r a c t i ng state but h as a b r a n c h, a g e n cy o r o t h er e s t a b l i s hm e nt in o n e of t he c o n t r a c t i ng states is d e e m e d to b e d o m i c i l ed in that state in r e g a rd to d i s p u t es a r i s i ng out of the o p e r a t i o ns of the b r a n c h, a g e n cy o r o t h er e s t a b l i s h m e n t. INSURANCE

I R£

D e r m o t K a v a n a gh

8 7 8 . 00

2 M a r y Street, N e w R o s s, C o . W e x f o r d.

A n t h o n y O ' M a l l e y

4 , 3 5 0 . 00

J a m e s Street, We s t p o r t, C o . M a y o .

J a m e s G . G l y n n D u b l in R o a d , T u a m , C o . G a l w a y.

6 0 0 . 00

Footnotes

1. Which still govern disputes falling outside the scope of the Convention. 2. DeCavel -v- DeCavel (Case 120/79) [1989 ECR 1055. 3. Gourdain -v- Nadler (Case 133/78) [ 1979) ECR 733.

F r a n c is G . C o s t e l lo 51 D o n n y b r o ok R o a d, D o n n y b r o o k, D u b l in 2.

1 6 3 , 0 7 2 . 38

4. (Case 9/87) [1988] ECR 1539. 5. (Case 38/81) 11982] ECR 825. 6. 11996] 2 All ER 257. 7. (Case 14/76) [ 1976] ECR 1497. 8. (Case 266/85) [ 1987] ECR 239.

1 6 8 , 9 0 0 . 38

ENGLISH AGENTS: A g e n c y w o r k u n d e r t a k en f or Irish S o l i c i t o rs in b o th litigation a nd n o n - c o n t e n t i o us m a t t e rs - i n c l u d i ng legal aid. Fearon & Co., Solicitors, Westminster House, 12 The Broadway, Woking, Surrey GU21 5AU.

9. [1991]2IR 88. 10. [1993] 3 IR 77. 11. (Case 12/76) 11976] ECR 1473. 12. [1994| 1 ILRM 39. 13. (Case 21/76) [ 1976] ECR 1735. 14. Dumez Bailment and Tracoba -v- Hessische Landesbank (Case 220/88) [1990] ECR 49. 15. [1996] 2 WLR 159. 16. (Case 68/90) [ 1992] 1 ALL ER 409. 17. Jay Murray, Murray Telecommunications Group Ltd. Murray Telecommunications Ltd and Murray Telecommunications (UK) Ltd -v- Times Newspapers Ltd, Irish Times, 8 April 1996.

Tel: 0044 - 1483 - 726272 Fax: 0044 - 1483 - 725807

251