1. Introduction

In the High Court of Ireland case Crotty v. SAS AB & Anor (Approved) ([2021] IEHC 394), the plaintiff, Caroline Crotty, sought redress for injuries sustained from a slip and fall accident at Ostersund Airport in Sweden. The incident occurred in November 2017 when Ms. Crotty disembarked a flight operated by SAS AB. She alleged negligence on the part of both SAS AB and the airport authority, Swedavia AB, leading to her injury. The primary legal dispute centered on whether the Irish Courts had jurisdiction to hear the claim against the second defendant, Swedavia AB, under the applicable international conventions and European Union regulations.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Ms. Justice Butler delivered the judgment on June 10, 2021, ruling in favor of the second defendant, Swedavia AB. The court held that the Irish Courts lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff’s claim against Swedavia AB. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the Montreal Convention, the Brussels Recast Regulation (Regulation (EC) 1215/2012), and the associated Montreal Convention Regulation (EC) 2027/97. The court found that the procedural and jurisdictional prerequisites for bringing a claim against Swedavia AB in Ireland were unmet. Consequently, the court ordered the service of the personal injury summons to be set aside and struck out the proceedings against the second defendant for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and regulations to support its decision. Notably:

• Thompson v. Dean ([2010] EWCA Civ 1745): Discussed the principles of jurisdiction in civil proceedings.
• Leo Laboratories v. Crompton ([2005] 2 IR 225): Emphasized the restrictive interpretation of special jurisdictional rules.
• Case C-168/02 Kronhofer v. Maier: Highlighted the necessity of special rules to exhaustively list exceptions to general jurisdiction principles.
• Case C-21/76 Bier and Case C-364/93 Marinari: Interpreted the scope of "the place where the harmful event occurred" under the Brussels Recast Regulation.
• Réunion Européenne v. Spliethoff’s Bevrachtingskantoor BV (Case C-51/97): Affirmed that special jurisdiction rules cannot extend beyond the clear exceptions provided by the regulations.

These precedents collectively underscored the court’s adherence to the principles of jurisdiction as delineated by European Union law and the need for a narrow interpretation of exceptions to general jurisdictional rules.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

The court’s legal reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Montreal Convention:

• Montreal Convention and Regulation EC 2027/97: While the Montreal Convention imposes strict liability on carriers like SAS AB for injuries sustained by passengers during international carriage operations, it does not extend this liability to airport authorities. Swedavia AB, as an airport operator, falls outside the scope of the Convention and Regulation, thereby negating the basis for jurisdiction under these instruments.
• Brussels Recast Regulation (Regulation EC 1215/2012): The court analyzed Articles 4, 5, 7, and 8 of the Regulation to determine jurisdiction. Article 4(1) establishes the general principle that defendants should be sued in their domicile Member State. The special rules under Articles 7 and 8 were scrutinized, revealing that none sufficiently applied to confer jurisdiction over Swedavia AB. Specifically:
  • Article 7(1): Pertains to contractual obligations and was inapplicable as there was no direct contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the airport operator.
  • Article 7(2): Relates to tort claims based on harmful events occurring within the jurisdiction, which did not encompass the claim against Swedavia AB since the injury was not a direct result of an airport operation under the Convention.
  • Article 8: Deals with multi-defendant scenarios, allowing connected claims to be heard in the jurisdiction of any of the defendants. However, since both defendants were domiciled in Sweden, and no foundational jurisdiction existed over Swedavia AB, this provision could not be invoked.

Additionally, the court addressed the procedural attempt by the plaintiff to amend the summons to include references to Article 8, determining that such an amendment was invalid as the jurisdictional basis did not exist at the time of service.

3.3 Impact

This judgment reinforces the boundaries of jurisdiction under the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Montreal Convention. It clarifies that airport authorities, not being carriers, fall outside the Convention’s purview, limiting plaintiffs from pursuing claims against such entities in Member States where no jurisdictional basis exists. This decision underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to establish clear jurisdictional grounds when alleging negligence against non-carrier defendants in international contexts. Future cases will reference this judgment to delineate the scope of jurisdiction, particularly in distinguishing between carriers and other airport-related entities.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

4.1 Brussels Recast Regulation (Regulation EC 1215/2012)

This is a European Union regulation that sets out rules to determine which EU Member State courts have jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters. Its main goal is to establish a clear and predictable framework to handle cross-border disputes within the EU.

4.2 Montreal Convention

An international treaty that standardizes airline liability in cases of passenger injury, death, or baggage loss during international flights. It imposes strict liability on carriers for such incidents, meaning airlines are liable for damages up to specified limits unless they can prove they were not negligent.

4.3 Article 7 and Article 8 of the Brussels Recast Regulation

Article 7: Deals with specific situations where jurisdiction can be established, such as contractual disputes or tort claims occurring within the jurisdiction.
Article 8: Pertains to cases involving multiple defendants, allowing connected claims to be heard in the jurisdiction where any one of the defendants is domiciled, provided the claims are closely related.

4.4 Occupier’s Liability

A legal concept where those who occupy property owe a duty of care to people who visit their property. In this case, Swedavia AB, as the operator of Ostersund Airport, would have obligations under Swedish law regarding the safety of its premises.

5. Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in Crotty v. SAS AB & Anor serves as a significant clarification on the limits of jurisdiction under the Brussels Recast Regulation and the Montreal Convention. By emphasizing the necessity for precise jurisdictional bases and the inapplicability of international conventions to non-carrier entities, the judgment provides clear guidance for future litigants and courts alike. It underscores the importance of understanding the interplay between international treaties and regional regulations in cross-border legal disputes, ensuring that jurisdictional challenges are meticulously addressed to prevent procedural defects and uphold the principles of legal certainty and fairness.