Oak Leaf Conservatories Ltd v Weir & Anor

Under rule 8(2) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, proceedings against a consumer may be brought only in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which the consumer is domiciled where the trader pursues or directs commercial activities there.

The question whether activities are directed to a territory depends on the trader’s manifested intention, assessed from its websites and overall activity. A website’s mere accessibility abroad is insufficient, but clear statements offering services throughout the United Kingdom, together with willingness and ability to work in the territory, may establish the necessary intention.

The claimant, an English company, sought damages from Scottish-domiciled consumers for alleged repudiation of contracts concerning bespoke structures at their home in Ayrshire.

The defendants applied under CPR Part 11 for a declaration that the English court lacked jurisdiction, relying principally on rule 8(2) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. It was common ground that the defendants were consumers and that the contracts fell within the claimant’s commercial activities. The central issue was whether the claimant pursued or directed those activities to Scotland.

1. The application succeeded on the primary jurisdiction issue. It was therefore unnecessary to determine the alternative arguments under rule 3 or forum non conveniens.

2. Section 16(1) of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 gives effect to Schedule 4 for determining jurisdiction between the courts of the United Kingdom. Rule 1 establishes domicile-based jurisdiction, rule 2 limits jurisdiction in another part of the United Kingdom, and rules 3–13 provide the exceptions.

3. Rule 7(1) covered the contracts because the claimant pursued commercial activities and the structures were supplied within the scope of those activities. Rule 8(2) therefore required proceedings against the consumer to be brought in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which the consumer was domiciled, if the claimant pursued or directed its activities there.

4. Applying the guidance in Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH [2012] Bus LR 972, the court had to determine whether, before contracting, the trader manifested an intention to establish commercial relations with consumers in the relevant territory. The assessment required consideration of the trader’s websites and overall activity. Mere website accessibility was insufficient, but clear expressions of an intention to solicit custom in the territory were strong evidence.

5. The claimant’s statements that projects were undertaken throughout the United Kingdom, together with references to advising on differing Scottish legislation and building regulations, demonstrated willingness and ability to work in Scotland. Its previous Scottish projects and acceptance of the defendants’ project reinforced that conclusion. Its primary focus on England and limited historical Scottish business did not alter the analysis.

6. The claimant therefore pursued commercial activities in Scotland and directed its activities to Scotland within rule 7(1). Exclusive jurisdiction was vested in the Scottish courts under rule 8(2).