Sunderland Marine Mutual Insurance Company Ltd v Wiseman & Ors

Under Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the special jurisdiction for tort claims is confined by the requirement to identify the place where the harmful event occurred. That expression covers the place of the event causing the damage and the place where the damage is directly produced, but it does not ordinarily extend to the claimant’s domicile, the place where a payment decision is made, or the place from which economic loss is paid. The forum non conveniens doctrine applies when choosing between jurisdictions within the United Kingdom. A stay is appropriate where another United Kingdom jurisdiction is clearly or distinctly more suitable, having regard especially to witness residence, practical cost and the dispute’s factual connection.

The claimant, an English mutual insurer, sued three defendants domiciled in Scotland. It alleged that they had conspired to scuttle an insured fishing vessel and had made fraudulent statements which induced payment of the insurance claim. The second and third defendants sought declarations that the English court lacked jurisdiction, alternatively a stay in favour of Scotland. The claimant relied on Rule 3(c) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, arguing that the harmful event occurred in England because the payment decision was made and payment was allegedly made there. The central issues were whether England was the place where the harmful event occurred and, if so, whether Scotland was clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction over the claims against the second and third defendants.

1. Rule 1 of Schedule 4 states the basic rule that persons domiciled in one part of the United Kingdom are sued there. Rule 2 permits proceedings elsewhere only under the special jurisdiction rules. Rule 3(c), concerning tort, requires the harmful event to have occurred in the other part of the United Kingdom.

2. By sections 16(3) and 16(4) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, Rule 3(c) was to be interpreted consistently with the European Court of Justice authorities on the analogous Brussels and Lugano provisions. The expression has an autonomous meaning and covers both the place of the event giving rise to the damage and the place where the damage directly occurs.

3. The alleged conspiracy occurred in Scotland, the vessel was scuttled from Scotland, and the material statements were made in Scotland. The fact that the insurer’s decision to pay was made in England, and that payment was assumed to have been made from England, did not establish either relevant place. Treating the payment location as sufficient would weaken the basic domicile rule and enable a claimant to select its preferred jurisdiction.

4. The court also held that forum non conveniens principles apply when selecting between United Kingdom jurisdictions. Section 49 preserved those principles where consistent with the applicable conventions. Scotland would have been clearly or distinctly the more appropriate forum because the defendants and most likely witnesses lived there, the factual dispute concerned events on the vessel, and the claim had a strong Scottish connection with little connection to England.

5. The parties were to be heard on the form of order and any ancillary matters not agreed.