The role of the place of damage in the United Kingdom's rules on jurisdiction and choice of law

What is it about?

This paper discusses how the courts in the United Kingdom, in cases that have connections with more than one country, use the place of damage in deciding whether they (as opposed to the courts of another country) have jurisdiction to rule on the merits of the case, and in deciding which country's law they should apply in making that ruling. The United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European Union has had an impact on the jurisdiction rules, which are not uniform within the United Kingdom. The focus of the paper is on the rules applied by the courts in England and Wales, but the rules applied by the courts in Scotland and in Northern Ireland are also considered.

Featured Image

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Photo by Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash

Why is it important?

A person's conduct in one country may have detrimental consequences for persons in one or more other countries. For example, the failure to perform a contract in one country may cause the affected party loss in another country, or a person injured in one country may suffer loss (such as medical expenses or loss of income) in another country. In these circumstances, which have become more frequent due to increased interconnectedness of persons around the globe, two questions arise: which of the multiple countries involved have jurisdiction to decide on a claim by an affected person in relation to the conduct (the jurisdiction question), and the law of which of the multiple countries involved is applied by a court in determining the merits of such a claim (the choice-of-law question)? These are important questions. Since different countries have different rules on jurisdiction and choice of law, the jurisdiction question influences the choice-of-law regime, and the applicable law may be decisive for the success of the claim.

Perspectives