Les Ambassadeurs Club Ltd v Vona

Consumer jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation (recast) depends on whether the trader directed its commercial or professional activities to the consumer’s Member State before the contract was concluded. The activity need not involve a website, distance selling or a State-wide advertising campaign. A trader’s organised use of agents, remunerated through financial or other benefits, to solicit customers in another Member State may satisfy the test. The court must assess all the evidence, using the non-exhaustive guidance from the European authorities. A prior relationship with the individual consumer, the consumer’s sophistication, and the fact that the services are supplied in the trader’s home State do not prevent the consumer provisions applying.

The claimant, an English casino operator, sought £250,000 from the defendant, an Italian-domiciled gambler, in respect of dishonoured cheques arising from gambling at the claimant’s London club. The defendant contested the jurisdiction of the English court, relying on the consumer provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012.

The claimant accepted that the defendant was a consumer and that the contract concerned its commercial activities, but argued that it had not directed those activities to Italy. The defendant relied on invitations and repeated telephone contact by the claimant’s agent, together with payment of travel and hospitality expenses. The central issue was whether those arrangements brought the contract within Article 17(1)(c), so that Article 18(2) required proceedings to be brought in Italy.

1. Application granted. The English court had no jurisdiction under the consumer provisions, and the claimant was required to pursue the claim in the courts of Italy.
2. The Regulation was to be construed purposively. Articles 4(1), 7(1) and 25 could otherwise support English jurisdiction, including through the contractual jurisdiction clause. However, Article 19 restricted derogation from the consumer provisions, including Article 18(2), unless one of its specified conditions was satisfied. No such condition applied.
3. Article 18(2) applied only where the contract fell within Article 17. The relevant inquiry under Article 17(1)(c) was whether, before the contract was concluded, the trader had manifested an intention to establish commercial relations with consumers in other Member States, including the consumer’s domicile, and whether the contract fell within those activities. The evidence was non-exhaustive and the question depended on the circumstances of each case.
4. The principles in Peter Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co. KG C-585/08 and the guidance summarised in Oak Leaf Conservatories Limited v Weir [2013] EWHC 3197 (TCC) applied. The claimant’s use of agents who recommended customers in return for enhanced membership benefits showed a remunerated and organised solicitation operation extending into Italy. It was immaterial that only one individual had been approached or that the claimant operated only in London.
5. The reasoning in Wood v Hewitsons LLP [2014] EWCA Civ 1698 did not assist the claimant. That case concerned communications after performance of the contract, whereas the relevant evidence here preceded contract formation. The defendant’s experience as a gambler and the fact that the contract was concluded and performed in England did not remove the protection afforded to a consumer under the Regulation.

not stated in the judgment.