DC v Wo'c

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Finnegan J.
• Judgment Date: 05 July 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 102
• Docket Number: [1999 No. 11192P],1999 No 11192 P
• Court: High Court
• Date: 05 July 2000

[2000] IEHC 102

THE HIGH COURT

1999 No 11192 P

C(D) v. C(W O)

BETWEEN

D.C.

PLAINTIFF

AND

W.O.C.

DEFENDANT

Citations

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968

JURISDICTION OF COURTS & ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENTS (EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES) ACT 1988

HARRODS (BUENAS AIRES) LTD, IN RE 1992 CH 72

INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD V WORSLADE TRAINING LTD 1998 2 IR 1

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 1

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 2

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 4

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 5

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 5(3)

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 5(4)

BRUSSELS CONVENTION 1968 ART 21

JENARD REPORT OJ C 59/1 S1(1)

JENARD REPORT OJ C 59/1 S1(2)

JENARD REPORT OJ C 59/1 S1(3)

MARINARI V LLOYDS BANK C-364/93 1995 TLR 524

SCHLOSSER REPORT ON THE 1978 ACCESSION CONVENTION PARA 76–78

BOSS GROUP LTD V BOSS FRANCE SA 1996 4 AER 970

Synopsis:

Practice and Procedure

Forum conveniens; Brussels Convention, 1968; contesting jurisdiction; plaintiff claiming damages for rape and sexual assault; alleged incident took place in Sweden; both plaintiff and defendant domiciled in Ireland; defendant sought to have the proceedings stayed under the common law jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of forum conveniens and to have the matter litigated in Sweden; whether doctrine of forum conveniens has survived the incorporation of the Brussels Convention into Irish law; Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988.

Held: Application for stay refused.

C (D) v. C (W O) - High Court: Finnegan J. - 05/07/2000 - [2001] 2 IR 1

The plaintiff and defendant were fellow employees who had travelled to Sweden. The plaintiff issued proceedings seeking damages for an alleged sexual assault which had allegedly occurred in Sweden. The defendant sought an order staying the proceedings on the grounds of forum conveniens. Finnegan J held that both the plaintiff and defendant were domiciled in Ireland. The court by reason of the Brussels Convention of 1968 had no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings.

1 Finnegan J. delivered on the 5th day of July, 2000.

2 The Plaintiff issued a Plenary Summons on the 9th November 1999 the general endorsement of claim on which reads as follows:-

"The Plaintiff's claim is for damages for rape and sexual assault"

3 The Defendant entered an appearance under protest for the purpose of contesting jurisdiction. The Plaintiff delivered a Statement of Claim from which the circumstances giving rise to the claim as asserted by the Plaintiff appear. The Plaintiff and Defendant were fellow employees and in the course of their employment travelled to Stockholm in May 1999. The Plaintiff asserts that while in Stockholm she was raped and subjected to sexual assault by the Defendant and in respect thereof claim's damages. By Notice of Motion dated 25th January, 2000 the Defendant sought to have the proceedings stayed under the common law jurisdiction of the Court on the ground of forum conveniens and to have the matter litigated in Sweden. The Defendant is domiciled in Ireland. The Plaintiff deposes as to her domicile as Irish and exhibited documents disclose that she holds both Irish and United States citizenship having been born in the United States, that she is married to an Irish citizen for some six years and that she moved to Ireland in January 1999. In his first supplemental Affidavit the Defendant deposes that the Plaintiff's domicile is unclear. The Plaintiff was not however cross examined on her Affidavit and accordingly I accept that her domicile is Irish. Both Ireland and Sweden are contracting states to the Brussels Convention of 1968. The Affidavits filed on behalf of the Defendant on the Application disclose circumstances which would justify the grant of the relief sought if it is indeed the case that notwithstanding the provisions of the Brussels Convention of 1968 incorporated into Irish law by the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Act, 1988the common law jurisdiction to stay on grounds of forum conveniens survives where each of the parties to a suit is domiciled in a contracting state.

4 In support of the Application the Defendant relied upon in RE Harrods (Buenas Aires) Limited[1992] CH 72and Intermetal Group Ltd & Anor v Worslade Trading Limited[1998] 2.I.R. 1. The former case was concerned with the entitlement of a person being sued to have proceedings stayed on the basis of forum conveniens where the Plaintiff is not domiciled in a contracting state. It was there held that the common law jurisdiction to stay survived in such circumstances. The decision is of no assistance to the Plaintiff for each of the parties in this action is domiciled in a contracting state. Likewise in the latter case the first named Plaintiff was domiciled in a non contracting state in these circumstances upon the basis of in RE Harrods (Buenas Aires) Limited it was held that the convention had no application. These decisions are in accord with Article 4 of the...