Iveco SpA & Anor v Magna Electronics SRL

For jurisdiction purposes, a contribution claim is characterised by its substance. A claim between parties with no relevant contract is ordinarily a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict under Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. The harmful event includes both the event causing the damage and the place where the direct damage occurs. In a defective-product case, damage occurs when the defect causes physical damage to another product or property, rather than merely when the component is delivered or incorporated.

Where a contract between the claimant and proposed contributor is likely to be relevant to assessing contribution, the claim may instead relate to a contract under Article 7(1)(a). That is a threshold assessment and does not require a detailed determination of the contract’s ultimate effect.

The defendant applied to strike out contribution claims brought by an Italian vehicle manufacturer and its United Kingdom distributor. The claims arose from settlements paid to owners of English premises damaged by fires caused, allegedly, by defective grid heater relay systems manufactured by the defendant in Italy.

The court considered whether the claims fell within Articles 7(1)(a), 7(2) or 8(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. The distributor had no contract with the defendant. The manufacturer had purchased the relay systems from the defendant under a contract. The central questions were whether England was a place where the harmful event occurred and whether the manufacturer’s claim was a matter relating to a contract.

1. Iveco UK’s claim. The claim was a matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict under Article 7(2). The reference to a contract in Article 7(1)(a) ordinarily concerned a contract between claimant and defendant, or a closely analogous agency relationship. The existence of a contract between the defendant and a separate group company did not make Iveco UK’s tort claim contractual.
2. The place where the harmful event occurred includes both the place of the event giving rise to damage and the place where the damage occurred. The negligent manufacture occurred in Italy, but the relevant direct physical damage occurred when the defective relays caused fires damaging premises in England. Delivery of the components, or their incorporation into vehicles, caused no actionable damage of the relevant kind. England was therefore a place where the original claimants could sue both Iveco UK and the defendant in tort.
3. Article 8(2) was directed principally to avoiding parallel proceedings and enabling related disputes to be heard together. It did not provide an exclusive jurisdictional basis for contribution claims or prevent Article 7(2) from applying.
4. Iveco Italy’s claim. The position differed because the relay systems were supplied under a contract between Iveco Italy and the defendant. That contract was likely to be relevant to assessing the defendant’s contribution, including possible limitations or exclusions of liability. It was therefore sufficient at the jurisdictional threshold for the claim to be a matter relating to a contract under Article 7(1)(a), although the approach was not invariable and depended on the facts.
5. The proposed amendment removing the contractual claim did not alter the analysis. The original pleading showed that the matters complained of could amount to breaches of contract. The application to strike out Iveco UK’s claim was dismissed. Iveco Italy was required to sue the defendant in Italy.