Rebecca Huxford, Senior Associate in our International Injury team, co-authored an article with Deka Chambers’ Sarah Prager KC assessing a jurisdictional challenge in which (perhaps somewhat unusually) practical and logistical factors were placed front and centre. The article was first published by Deka Chambers in ‘The Dekagram’ on 18 June 2025.

The High Court of England and Wales recently accepted jurisdiction in a case issued by a UK resident who sustained life changing injuries in a motorcycle collision in the Isle of Man. The Court refused the defendant’s application for the claim to be set aside, accepting the claimant’s position that England is the correct and proper place to determine the matter. The Court accepted that the central issue at the heart of the case is quantum; all quantum witnesses and the quantum evidence is located in England and Wales, and whilst evidence can be given by video link in the Isle of Man courts, the Court was not persuaded that this would produce the best evidence.

Isle of Man motorcycle collision

The claimant is a 52-year-old domiciled in Wales. He was involved in a motorcycle collision in August 2023 when he was visiting the Isle of Man with three friends to watch the Manx Grand Prix, Classic TT.

The claimant was seriously injured when the defendant driver, an Isle of Man resident, pulled out of a church car park and into the claimant’s path, causing the claimant to be thrown from his bike and over the bonnet of the defendant’s car and some distance down the road. Consequently, the claimant sustained a moderate to severe brain injury causing weakness and numbness in his right leg. He was hospitalised in the Isle of Man for two weeks and eventually repatriated to Wales where he remained in hospital for a further five weeks before being discharged home.

The defendant was eventually charged with causing serious bodily harm by driving without due care or consideration. He pleaded guilty and was banned from driving for 12 months and fined.

Jurisdiction and service

The claimant instructed Stewarts in November 2023 and is represented by Senior Associate, Rebecca Huxford with assistance from Natalya Salt of Stewarts’ International Injury team.

Stewarts made initial contact with the defendant’s insurer, Tower Insurance, to request that early rehabilitation funding be provided. The defendant stated that the case was subject to the provisions of Manx not English law and the claimant would not be able to recover his English legal costs.

The defendant did not make an admission of liability and did not respond to the claimant’s repeated requests for funding despite the criminal proceedings and the defendant’s eventual guilty plea. The claimant therefore issued proceedings in the English High Court on 8 August 2024. Permission to serve the defendant was granted on 28 October 2024. Proceedings were served on the defendant directly in the Isle of Man.

The defendant’s insurer subsequently instructed DAC Beachcroft, who filed an acknowledgement of service confirming an intention to challenge jurisdiction, and subsequently made an application requesting the Court make an order to set aside the Claim Form on the grounds of forum non conveniens.

Forum challenge

Both parties accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried, that the claim fell within one of the jurisdictional gateways and that Manx law applies. However, a claimant who serves proceedings outside of the jurisdiction must show that the courts of England and Wales are clearly and distinctly the more appropriate forum in which to hear the claim (Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460, at 465A). The defendant contended in their application that England and Wales was not the more appropriate forum because:

• The claim involves an accident on the Isle of Man, where the defendant is also domiciled and resident.
• Manx law will govern numerous issues including liability, contribution and the nature and assessment of damages. The defendant suggested that contributory negligence may be in issue.
• Manx law is a separate body of law. English precedent is persuasive but only Manx precedents are binding. Reference may well be made by Manx courts to eg the Judicial College Guidelines. However, there are in fact substantial substantive law differences between the two jurisdictions.
• The defendant was insured for the purposes of the claim by a Manx-domiciled insurer, Tower Insurance. Tower is an independent Isle of Man-registered insurance company. Its shareholder is a UK insurance company but the contract of insurance between Tower and the defendant is governed by Manx law.
• Although Conditional Fee Agreements (‘CFA’) are not lawful in the Manx jurisdiction, legal aid is available for individuals bringing personal injury claims in the Courts there, without a requirement that the claimant is resident there. It is theoretically available to the claimant but is means tested.

The claimant disputed there were substantive differences between English and Manx law and consulted Manx lawyer Joanne Creedon of Hannan Law. Joanne confirmed that the assessment of primary liability and contributory negligence is often done with reference to principles under English common law with the fundamental principles of breach of duty being the same. The principle of full compensation is the same, the assessment of PSLA is done with reference to the England and Wales Judicial College Guidelines and Kemp and Kemp as there is no Manx equivalent.

The claimant also contended that the funding regime in the Isle of Man and the level of costs mean that the claimant will be unable to litigate there. Funding arrangements are different in that conditional fee agreements are not permitted and after the event insurance is not readily available. Qualified one-way costs shifting does not exist and costs recovery is generally much more limited.

Although Conditional Fee Agreements (‘CFA’) are not lawful in the Manx jurisdiction, legal aid is available for individuals bringing personal injury claims in the Courts there, without a requirement that the claimant is resident there. It is theoretically available to the claimant but is means tested.

Two weeks prior to the hearing the defendant admitted primary liability and agreed to make an interim payment to the claimant. The defendant accepted there is relatively little of substance between Manx law and English law in relation to personal injury claims arising out of a road accident, albeit the discount rate for calculating future loss is different (currently 1%), and so are interest rates for both general and special damages.

It was also accepted that Conditional Fee Agreements are not permitted in proceedings on the Isle of Man and there is no equivalent of qualified one-way costs shifting or the provisions of CPR 44.15/44.16, but that means tested legal aid was available; and that costs were markedly lower and the timescales to trial were also much shorter. Further, where an admission of liability was received it may be possible for payment of legal fees to be deferred.

The hearing

The claimant was represented by Sarah Prager KC at the hearing on the 4 June 2025 before Master Armstrong. The defendant was represented by Katherine Deal KC.

There was a good measure of agreement between the parties by that point: it was agreed that whether the claim was heard in the English and Welsh or the Manx courts, the court would readily be able to apply Manx law to the questions at hand, namely contributory negligence and quantum. The question of appropriate forum therefore came down to considerations of practical justice – in which forum could justice more readily be done?

Master Armstrong went on to conduct the balancing exercise of establishing whether England is the appropriate forum for the claim. If the judge had concluded that it was not the appropriate forum, English proceedings would have been stayed and the claimant would have had to pursue his claim in the Isle of Man and start fresh proceedings in the Isle of Man.

Master Armstrong agreed with the claimant that England is the “correct and proper place to determine the matter”. He relied on the following reasons:

• Primary liability is admitted and so the central issue to be determined is one of the quantification of losses.
• Whilst contributory negligence will be an issue to be determined, this is a modest issue against the central issue of quantum, and of the liability witnesses, two were located on the Isle of Man, whilst the majority were located in England and Wales. If accident reconstruction evidence is required, it is likely to be given by experts based in England and Wales.
• All expert evidence used to quantify damages, which will be substantial given the severity of the claimant’s injuries, will be based in England and Wales. Master Armstrong stated: “Whilst these expert witnesses could give evidence via video link, I am not persuaded it would be their best evidence on the issue at the heart of the case which is quantum”.
• All documentary evidence relating to the claimant’s medical records and employment records are based in England and Wales and these will be heavily relied upon to determine quantum.
• Although the claim for damages will be assessed using Manx law, there are no significant differences between Manx law and the law of England and Wales in determining either liability or quantum. The only differences are the personal injury discount rate and interest rates, which are purely mathematical.
• Finally, it was emphasised that as the claimant has capacity, it is his choice who he instructs to represent him and therefore what funding arrangements he enters into. The defendant’s contention that he will receive lower damages due to the existence of the Conditional Fee Agreement, and the claimant’s contention that enabling him to litigate in the manner he chooses so as to maximise his damages recovery, are offset against each other and are not in any event matters the court should have regard to.

Permission to appeal was refused.

You can find further information regarding our expertise, experience and team on our International Injury page.

If you require assistance from our team, please contact us.

Subscribe – In order to receive our news straight to your inbox, subscribe here. Our newsletters are sent no more than once a month.