Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves a claim by Simon Morrison (pursuer) for injuries sustained in a 2018 bus accident in Malta. The pursuer initially sued Mapfre Middlesea Insurance PLC (first defender) as the insurer of City Sightseeing Malta Limited (second defender). After a 2021 decision upheld a no-jurisdiction plea by a third party, the case was amended to include the operator as a second defender. The core issue is whether the Scottish court has jurisdiction over the second defender under Article 13(3) of Recast Brussels I Regulation, post-Brexit, given that proceedings against the second defender were not instituted before the transition period ended (31 December 2020). The court concluded that the pursuer's claim against the second defender does not constitute a 'matter relating to insurance' under the regulation.
Issues
- The second issue is whether the Scottish court has jurisdiction over the second defender under Article 13(3) of Recast Brussels I, which allows the same court to have jurisdiction over the insured if the law permits joining them to proceedings against the insurer. The pursuer argues this applies here, while the second defender claims the claim against it is not a matter relating to insurance as required by the regulation.
- The first issue concerns the ongoing applicability of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Recast Brussels I) to the second defender following the UK's withdrawal from the EU on 31 December 2020. The second defender argues that proceedings against it were not instituted before the end of the transition period, while the pursuer contends that the entire case, including the second defender, falls under Recast Brussels I due to the initial proceedings against the first defender being timely.
Holdings
- The court concluded that this court cannot assume jurisdiction over the second defender under Article 13(3) of Recast Brussels I. The pursuer's claim against the insured was not classified as a 'matter relating to insurance' under Article 10, and the CJEU's decision in Seguros v. Catalana Occidente precluded jurisdiction under the circumstances where the insurer had not 'challenged' the insured in these proceedings.
- The court determined that Recast Brussels I continues to apply to new defendants added to legal proceedings which were instituted before the end of the transition period (31 December 2020). The judge rejected the second defender's narrower interpretation of 'legal proceedings' and found the broader construction supported by the Withdrawal Agreement's intent to maintain legal certainty.
Remedies
The court dismissed the pursuer's claim against the second defender, City Sightseeing Malta Limited, in accordance with its jurisdictional determination under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012. The court also reserved all questions of expenses for further consideration.
Legal Principles
- The court applied the Literal Rule in interpreting Article 13(3) of Recast Brussels I, emphasizing that the text must be read strictly without extending its scope to claims against insureds not directly related to insurance rights. The CJEU's decision in Seguros confirmed that disputes between injured parties and insureds are not 'matters relating to insurance' unless they involve the insurance relationship itself.
- The court considered the purposive intent of Recast Brussels I, particularly recital 21, which aims to minimize concurrent proceedings and prevent irreconcilable judgments. Despite this, the CJEU in Seguros rejected using Article 13(3) to circumvent general jurisdiction rules for tort claims, prioritizing the regulation's structural balance between parties.
Precedent Name
- Groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE) Réunion européenne v Zurich España
- AAS 'Balta' v UAB 'Grifs AG'
- The London Steam-Ship Owners' Mutual Insurance Association Limited v Spain (The Prestige)
- Bourlakova & Ors v Bourlakov & Ors
- Vorarlberger Gebietskrankenkasse v WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine Versicherungs AG
- KABEG v Mutuelles du Mans Assurances – MMA IARD SA
- Seguros Catalana Occidente & Anr
- Aspen Underwriting Limited v Credit Europe Bank NV
- Simon v Taché
Cited Statute
- Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
- Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Recast Brussels I)
- State Immunity Act 1978
- 2019 EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement
Judge Name
Lord Richardson
Passage Text
- It follows that I consider that the answer to the second issue falls to be determined in line with the guidance provided by the CJEU in Seguros. On this basis, as the claim being advanced by the pursuer against the second defender is not a matter 'relating to insurance', this court cannot assume jurisdiction over the second defender in terms of Article 13(3) of Recast Brussels I.
- Article 13(3)... must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of a direct action brought by the injured person against an insurer... the court of the member state in which that person is domiciled cannot also assume jurisdiction... against the insured who has not been challenged by the insurer.
- The straightforward construction of Article 67(1) is that put forward by the pursuer. I can see no basis in the wording of the provision for the narrower construction contended for by the second defender. The language of Article 67(1) is supportive of the broader construction argued for by the pursuer.