As we go through summer I am trying to catch up with posts I did not find the time for sooner. Readers will know that they may want to keep an eye on my Twitter feed to keep up with recent developments.
A failed forum non conveniens challenge in Lunn v Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Ltd [2024] EWHC 1662 (KB) led to an interesting discussion on applicable law under the Rome II Regulation.
The claim concerns injuries sustained by claimant whilst he was working as a self-employed aircraft engineer for a Malta-based company, Jet Magic Limited. At the time of the accident he was in the process of carrying out checks on a Boeing 757 operated by Jet Magic, which was stationary on the blue ice airstrip of the Novolazarevskaya Air Base, also known as the Novo Air Base, Schirmacher Oasis, Queen Maud Land, Antarctica. Claimant is a British citizen and was resident in the UK at the material time.
The Defendant, Antarctic Logistics Centre International (Pty) Limited, is a company incorporated under the law of South Africa. At the material time it was the occupier and operator of the Novo Airstrip pursuant to an agreement with the Russian Federation. The Defendant chartered the aircraft to transport scientists and workers to and from research stations in Antarctica.
Defendant concedes that the Claimant’s evidence of continuing symptoms from his injuries whilst in England is sufficient to establish an arguable case that the tort gateway for jurisdiction per Brownlie, is met.
Issues between the parties are first the merits test: has the Claimant has established that his pleaded case has a reasonable prospect of success / that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits (CPR 6.37(1)(b))? Secondly, forum conveniens and discretion: has the Claimant established that England and Wales is the proper place to try the claim and, if so, in all the circumstances, ought the court to exercise its jurisdiction to permit service out of the jurisdiction (CPR 6.37(3))?
The dispute between the parties as to the applicable law is relevant both to the determination of whether the Claimant’s case has real prospects of success and to the determination of the forum issue.
The particulars of claim contend that English law applies by virtue of A4(3) of Rome II, the “manifestly closer connection” correction to the general rule. In the pleadings however focus became different: namely that English law should be applied at this stage of the proceedings pursuant to the “default rule” or, alternatively, on the basis of the “presumption of similarity”, namely that English law is substantially similar to any relevant foreign applicable law in relation to the core tortious principles arising in this case. Claimant’s counsel submits that English law should be applied unless and until the Defendant pleads a Defence in due course which alleges the application of foreign law and establishes its case in that regard.
Defendant contends that Russian law is the applicable law pursuant to A4(1) Rome II on the basis that the Novo Airstrip is said to be located in an area which is subject to Russian jurisdiction and law. There is a disagreement between the parties as to whether the Novo Airstrip is in an area of Antarctica claimed by Norway or by Russia or both and, accordingly, as to what the “law of the country” should be deemed to be pursuant to A4(1) Rome II in respect of damage occurring on the Novo Airstrip. [37] The difficulty of Antarctica as a ‘country’, and the challenge of applying Rome I and II to vessels is also flagged in Dicey.
Defendant also advances two further contentions in relation to the applicable law:
a. First, South African law is said to be the applicable law pursuant to A4(2) Rome II on the basis that, pursuant to A23(2) of Rome II, the principal place of the Claimant’s business should be deemed to be South Africa. It is said that as a self-employed engineer working on the aircraft, Claimant’s principal place of business was wherever the aircraft was located from time to time. It is contended that the aircraft was based in Cape Town, South Africa at the material time. It is submitted that this is relevant to the merits test as the Claimant has adduced no evidence of South African law, as well as to issues of forum.
b. Second, it is said that it is clear that English law does not apply to this case and that South African or Russian (or, potentially Norwegian) law applies and that “as there is no pleaded case of Russian, South African or Norwegian law, the case does not disclose any arguable case” and so the Claimant cannot succeed on the merits test.
As things turned out, the A4(1) discussion was not pursued by parties at this stage. Per Tulip Trading Ltd (a Seychelles company) v Bitcoin association for BSV and others [2023] EWCA Civ 83 applicable law discussions a the jurisdictional stage must be conducted summarily. [38] Both parties have been attempting to liaise with the Foreign Office and are still attempting to collate evidence as to the potential application of A4(1) to cases concerning damage which occurs in Antarctica. [39] The possibility of either Russian or Norwegian law applying is in any event irrelevant to the issue of forum (as opposed to the merits test) because no party is asserting that the claim should be heard in either Russia or Norway.
In the circumstances, the primary dispute between the parties on applicable law therefore is whether English law should be deemed to apply at this stage of the proceedings pursuant to the default rule or the presumption of similarity (claimant’s take) or whether South African law is the applicable law pursuant to A4(2) Rome II (defendant).
Webb DJ [40] ff rejects the submission that A4(2) implies application of South African law to the case. [48] he holds there is something artificial to place too much “weight for jurisdiction purposes on the location of a place of business which is itinerant or peripatetic in nature.” (Compare nb somewhat CJEU Ryanair). “If and insofar as [claimant] can be said to have had a principal place of business at the material time, I consider that the weight of the evidence currently before me points, albeit somewhat weakly given the artificiality of applying the test to an itinerant business, to his principal place of business being England.”
The judge then applies [57] the default rule:
In the present case, for the reasons set out at [38] to [39] above, it has not been established that either Russian or Norwegian law is applicable under Article 4(1); nor can I be satisfied, on the present evidence, that there is a well-founded case (to adopt the words used by Lord Leggatt in Brownlie II at [116]) that Russian law applies, nor that Norwegian law applies, pursuant to Article 4(1). For the reasons set out at [47] above it has not been established (and nor do I believe there to be a well-founded case for arguing) that South African law is applicable under Article 4(2) of Rome II. It has also not been established that any foreign law is applicable under Article 4(3). In such circumstances it is appropriate, in my judgment, for the court to apply English law on the default basis at this jurisdictional stage.
(and note [58]: “If the matter proceeds in this jurisdiction, then the Defendant will have the option of pleading, and attempting to establish, that foreign law applies, whether Norwegian, Russian or South African. It is, of course, possible that neither party elects to establish that any foreign law is applicable in such circumstances or that, if applicable, there are any material differences between that alleged applicable law and English law for the purposes of this claim.”)
The obiter fallback [59] is reliance on the presumption of similarity.
The remainder of the discussion then runs through the various forum non and merits issues, and concludes [116]
Claimant has, in my judgment, satisfied the burdens upon him to show (a) that the claim has a reasonable prospect of success, (b) that there is a good arguable case that the claim falls within the relevant jurisdictional gateway (a point rightly conceded by the Defendant), and (c) that England and Wales is the forum in which the case can be suitably tried for the interests of all the parties and for the ends of justice and is clearly and distinctly the proper place to bring the claim. In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that this is a case in which it is appropriate for the court to exercise its discretion to permit service of these proceedings out of the jurisdiction on the Defendant.
Of note, and an A4 Rome II discussion to be continued.
Geert.
EU Private International Law, 4th ed. 2024, 4.37 ff.
