International Jurisdiction

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

Ontario: claim against Mexican hotel stayed for lack of jurisdiction

In the spring of 2006, the plaintiff, Angela Haufler, was injured while on vacation in Mexico with her mother, a friend, and the friend's mother. The injury occurred while she was participating in an all-terrain vehicle (“ATV”) excursion.

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

CJEU decides on jurisdiction in package travel case

The plaintiffs, domiciled in Bludesch (Austria), booked and paid for themselves, as private individuals, a package holiday to Egypt on the website of a German online travel agent. The OTA, a company whose registered office is in Munich (Germany), stated that it acted as the travel agent and that the trip would be operated by a particular our operator, which has its registered office in Vienna (Austria).

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

Germany: Supreme Court decides on international jurisdiction with regard to letting of holiday homes

The plaintiffs, domiciled in Germany, had rented a holiday home in Belgium from a Danish tour operator (the defendant). They had several complaints about the condition of the home and claimed for a price reduction. Based on the consumer forum pursuant to Articles 15 and 16 of the Brussels I-Regulation they filed their claim before their local court. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the claim on the ground of lacking international jurisdiction of German courts.

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

Austria: reference for ECJ preliminary ruling on Brussels I-Regulation

The plaintiffs, both Austrian residents domiciled in Bludesch (Austrian Province of Vorarlberg), had booked a holiday package to Egypt organized by an Austrian tour operator located in Vienna. The booking was made online through the website of a German travel agency. By mistake of either the tour operator or the travel agency, they were booked to a different (but similary named) hotel than they had actually chosen. They filed a law suit against both, the travel agency and the tour operator, before their local court in Vorarlberg.

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

Florida: Costa Concordia lawsuit dismissed

A lawsuit against Carnival Corp. stemming from the Costa Concordia accident was dismissed Sept. 28 in Florida. The judge stated it should be refiled in Italy. About 1,000 businesses on the island of Giglio, where the Costa ship capsized, moved to sue Carnival in Miami, where it is headquartered, instead of Italy, where Costa is based.

Source: Travel Pulse; find article here>>.

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

USA: cruise ship forum-selection clause upheld

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed dismissal of an action brought by the estate of a passenger against the operator of a cruise ship on which the passenger died after contracting a bacterial infection. The dismissal was made on the basis of the forum-selection clause in the passage contract, which provided that all personal injury claims were to be litigated in the courts of England and Wales and be governed by English law.

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

CJEU: no distance contract required for consumer forum pursuant to Brussels I Regulation

Upon reference of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), the CJEU has held in its judgement of Sep. 6, 2012 in Case C-190/11 (Mühlleitner) that the consumer’s possibility of bringing proceedings before the courts of his Member State against a trader domiciled in another Member State is not subject to the condition that the contract was concluded at a distance.

Michael Wukoschitz's picture

Canada: Supreme Court decides on jurisdiciton over foreign companies

Two cases, consoldiated on appeal, both involved personal injury claims by Canadian citizens arising from accidents they suffered during their holidays in Cuba. One of the defendants, Club Resorts Ltd., was the company that managed the two hotels where the accidents took place. Club Resorts argued that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over the actions, or in the alternative, that the doctrine of forum non conveniens should apply. The motion judges in both cases dismissed this argument and held that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld both decisions.

Pages

X