Article published on recent CJEU decision which increases predictability of jurisdiction in tort cases

Under EU rules, a tort claim may be brought in the courts of the member state where the harmful event occurred, as an alternative to suing in the courts of the defendant's domicile. The reference to "where the harmful event occurred" includes where the damage occurred, as well as the event that gave rise to the damage. This can give rise to difficult questions where financial damage is suffered in one member state as a result of an event that occurred in another member state.

In Universal Music International Holding BV v Schilling (C-12/15, 16 June 2016), the CJEU held that that "where the harmful event occurred" could not be read so broadly as to encompass any place where the adverse consequences of an event can be felt, and so the Dutch claimant could not bring a claim against its Czech legal advisers in the Netherlands solely on the basis that the relevant losses had been paid from its Dutch bank account. This limits the scope of the CJEU's previous decision in Kolassa v Barclays Bank plc (E-375/13, 28 January 2015) (considered here).

Donny Surtani and Nick Chapman have published an article in the 12 August edition of New Law Journal in which they consider the decision and its implications. Click here to download a copy.