The High Court has rejected a jurisdiction challenge brought by the defendant in the case of Shaw and Greenwood-Nimmo -v- Stephani (As Administratrix of the Estate of Eric Stephani), finding that England and Wales is clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum in which the claims should be tried.
The case arises from a serious road traffic collision on the A5 in Shropshire on 26 November 2023. Matthew Greenwood-Nimmo (a dual UK-Australian citizen) was driving a UK-registered hire car, with his partner Tessa Shaw as a front-seat passenger, when their vehicle was struck by a car driven by Eric Stephani, who was travelling in the opposite direction. Both claimants sustained serious injuries, and Mr Stephani was killed in the collision. As a result, proceedings were brought against his mother in her capacity as administratrix of his estate.
With Mr Stephani’s mother resident and domiciled in New York and the claimants resident in Melbourne, Australia, unusually none of the parties to the proceedings are resident or domiciled in England and Wales. Direct Line, the defendant motor insurer, is an English company.
Liability was admitted before proceedings were issued. Following the issue and service of proceedings in England, the defendant challenged jurisdiction, arguing that the courts in Victoria, Australia, were the appropriate forum because the claimants live and work in Melbourne, receive much of their treatment there and will incur a substantial proportion of their future losses in Australia.
However, the claimants maintained that their claims should proceed in England and Wales. They relied upon the fact that the collision and the initial injuries and losses occurred in England; that English law applies; that there is a contentious issue under English law relating to the personal injury discount rate, on which specialist expert evidence is required; and that the practical arrangements for witnesses, experts, and disclosure would permit the claims to be tried fairly and efficiently in this jurisdiction.
England has the most real and substantial connection
Andrew Kinnier KC, sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court, concluded that, viewed overall, England and Wales is the forum with which the claims have the most real and substantial connection.
The court recognised that the relevant connecting factors did not all point in the same direction. The claimants live and work in Australia, where a substantial part of their losses have been and will continue to be incurred. Nevertheless, the accident occurred in England, the claimants sustained their injuries and initial losses in England, and English law applies to the assessment of damages.
The importance of the decision for Stewarts’ clients
Commenting on the outcome, which enables the claims to proceed in the High Court of England and Wales, Chris Deacon, partner in the International Injury department at Stewarts, said:
“We are pleased that the court has rejected the jurisdiction challenge and confirmed that our clients’ claims should be allowed to proceed in their chosen jurisdiction. Although Tessa and Matthew live in Australia and much of their continuing loss is being incurred there, the collision and their initial injuries occurred in England, and their damages fall to be assessed under English law.
“Fortunately, although the incident has had a life-changing impact for Tessa and Matthew, they remain able to travel to England and Wales, and continue to do so regularly with support and adapted travel arrangements. They were therefore keen to pursue their claims, to which English law applies, in the English courts. This will not always be the position for cross-border serious injury victims, but it was the claimants’ preference on this occasion.
“The court’s treatment of the discount rate issue is also important. It recognises that evidence about overseas investment conditions may be necessary when an injured claimant lives abroad, but confirms that the English courts are fully equipped to consider that evidence when applying the Damages Act 1996. Indeed, this is an issue on which the International Injury department at Stewarts has extensive experience, as demonstrated through the evidence we submitted to the court in opposing the defendant’s jurisdiction challenge. If the claims had had to proceed in Victoria, then it is clear the defendant would have sought to argue Australian law should apply, introducing additional delay, uncertainty and legal costs. We now intend to secure a trial on the assessment of damages in England at the earliest opportunity.”
Legal teams
Sarah Prager KC of Deka Chambers, instructed by Stewarts, represented the claimants in the jurisdiction challenge. The case was led at Stewarts by partner Chris Deacon. The defendant’s legal team at DWF, instructed Marie-Louise Kinsler KC and Rebecca Brown of 2 Temple Gardens.
