Joe Moroney Coach Hire Ltd v Moseley In The South Ltd & Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns the jurisdiction of the Irish courts over a claim brought by the Plaintiff, a luxury coach hire business, against two Defendants: the UK Defendant, a company based in the United Kingdom, and the Belgian Defendant, a company based in Belgium. The claim arises from the purchase of a newly manufactured luxury coach that the Plaintiff alleges is defective. The Plaintiff commenced proceedings in February 2019 alleging negligence and breach of duty against both Defendants, and breach of contract and rescission against the UK Defendant only.

Both Defendants entered conditional appearances to contest jurisdiction and filed motions to have the Plaintiff's plenary summons set aside or the proceedings struck out for want of jurisdiction. The parties agreed that jurisdiction is to be determined under EU Council Regulation 1215/2012 (the Brussels Regulation). The UK Defendant was voluntarily wound up in March 2021, and the motions were heard subsequently. The Plaintiff also sought to join an additional co-plaintiff, but the court determined jurisdiction first before considering any joinder.

The Plaintiff’s claim includes allegations that the coach was defective, causing financial loss and loss of use, with repairs carried out in the UK. The UK Defendant relies on contractual jurisdictional provisions and the place of delivery as the UK, whereas the Belgian Defendant’s jurisdiction depends on whether the harmful event occurred in Ireland or Belgium.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim against the UK Defendant, considering the contractual relationship, place of delivery, and an exclusive jurisdiction clause under the Brussels Regulation.
2. Whether the Irish courts have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim against the Belgian Defendant, focusing on the place where the harmful event giving rise to the tort claim occurred under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation.
3. The interpretation and application of Articles 4, 7, and 25 of the Brussels Regulation concerning jurisdiction in matters relating to contracts and torts, including the mutual exclusivity of jurisdictional rules for contract and tort claims.

Arguments of the Parties

UK Defendant's Arguments

• The default jurisdiction is the place of the Defendant’s domicile; the Plaintiff must show a special rule applies for jurisdiction elsewhere.
• The claim against the UK Defendant is contractual in nature, so jurisdiction is governed exclusively by Article 7(1) of the Brussels Regulation.
• Under Article 7(1)(b), the place of performance of the obligation (sale of goods) is where the goods were delivered, i.e., the UK.
• The contract contains an exclusive jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on UK courts, valid under Article 25 of the Brussels Regulation and UK law.
• Documents provided to the Plaintiff incorporated the UK Defendant’s terms and conditions, including the jurisdiction clause, which the Plaintiff had prior knowledge of through earlier dealings.

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contends there was a fully concluded verbal agreement reached in Ireland prior to the documents, excluding the UK Defendant’s terms and conditions.
• The place of performance of the contract obligations was Ireland, as the coach was intended for use there.
• The Plaintiff challenges the incorporation of the UK Defendant’s terms and conditions on the basis of lack of clear evidence of receipt and acceptance.
• The Plaintiff relies on an "understanding" that Irish law governed the contract and that jurisdiction should lie in Ireland.

Belgian Defendant's Arguments

• Jurisdiction is governed by tort rules under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation since the relationship is not contractual.
• The harmful event occurred in Belgium, the place of manufacture, so jurisdiction lies there.
• Financial loss suffered in Ireland is consequential and insufficient to establish jurisdiction in Ireland.

Plaintiff's Arguments Against Belgian Defendant

• The damage manifested in Ireland when the coach was put into use, so the harmful event occurred in Ireland.
• The Belgian Defendant knew the Plaintiff was the intended purchaser and that the vehicle would be used in Ireland, making jurisdiction there foreseeable.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed jurisdiction over the claim against the UK Defendant. It found that under EU law, the jurisdictional rules for contract and tort claims are mutually exclusive. Since the Plaintiff’s claim against the UK Defendant is fundamentally contractual, jurisdiction is governed exclusively by Article 7(1) of the Brussels Regulation.

The court then analyzed the place of performance of the contract obligations under Article 7(1)(b), which for sale of goods is the place where the goods were delivered. The coach was delivered in the UK, making the UK courts the appropriate forum. The Plaintiff’s argument that the place of performance was Ireland, based on an alleged understanding and intended use, was not supported by sufficient evidence or agreement. The Plaintiff failed to discharge the onus of proving that jurisdiction should lie in Ireland.

The court further considered the exclusive jurisdiction clause in the UK Defendant’s terms and conditions. It found that these terms were incorporated into the contract by reference to prior dealings and the documentation exchanged, supported by UK law and legal opinion. Although it was unnecessary to decide this issue fully given the place of delivery ruling, the clause was valid and reinforced UK jurisdiction.

Regarding the Belgian Defendant, the court examined whether Ireland could be regarded as the place where the harmful event occurred under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Regulation, applicable to tort claims. The court accepted the Plaintiff’s factual assertions on a balance of probabilities, following the CJEU’s approach in Kolassa.

The court reviewed relevant case law establishing that the “place where the harmful event occurred” may be either the place of the event giving rise to damage (here, manufacture in Belgium) or the place where the damage manifested (here, Ireland). The Plaintiff was entitled to choose either jurisdiction.

Applying these principles, the court found that the damage manifested in Ireland when the coach was used as intended, and that the defects affected the Plaintiff’s business there. The Belgian Defendant’s knowledge of the Plaintiff’s location supported foreseeability but was not determinative. The court concluded that Ireland was a proper forum for the tort claim against the Belgian Defendant.

Holding and Implications

The court made the following rulings:

The Irish courts do not have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s contractual claim against the UK Defendant. The UK Defendant’s motion to set aside the plenary summons and strike out the proceedings for want of jurisdiction was allowed. The proceedings against the UK Defendant were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The Irish courts do have jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s tort claim against the Belgian Defendant. The motion by the Belgian Defendant to set aside the summons was refused, and the proceedings against it may continue in Ireland.

These decisions directly affect the parties’ litigation strategies by limiting the Plaintiff’s contractual claims to the UK courts while permitting tort claims against the Belgian Defendant to proceed in Ireland. The court’s ruling adheres strictly to the Brussels Regulation’s jurisdictional framework and does not establish new precedent beyond the interpretation and application of existing EU law principles.