The Irish High Court held this week¹ that it has jurisdiction in a claim brought by a plaintiff against a UK-domiciled company for injuries which the plaintiff sustained on a cycling holiday organised by the defendant in Sri Lanka.

This case provides an invaluable insight into how the Irish courts will treat consumer claims against foreign-domiciled defendants and is important know-how for any international company which sells its goods or services to Irish consumers.

The question in this case was whether the special rules under the recast Brussels I Regulation² dealing with jurisdiction over consumer contracts claims applied in the circumstances.

Article 18 of the recast Brussels I Regulation provides a derogation to the general rule that proceedings are to be brought in the domicile of the defendant by providing that a consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract in the courts of the place where the consumer is domiciled. In order to fall within the derogation, the plaintiff had to show (Article 17(1)(c)) that:

“the contract has been concluded with a person who pursues commercial or professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile or, by any means, directs such activities to that Member State or to several States including that Member State, and the contract falls within the scope of such activities.”

In determining whether the defendant had “directed” its activities to Ireland, the court considered the leading judgment of the CJEU – Pammer³. In Pammer, the CJEU held (under the old Brussels Regulation) that a trader cannot be said to be “directing” its activities to member states merely because its website is accessible in other member states. Something more is required amounting to an intention to establish relations with consumers in the other member states.

Factors which a court must consider in identifying such an intention include the international nature of the activity; mention of telephone numbers with international codes; use of a top-level domain name other than that of the defendant’s domicile; and mention of an international clientele (there is specific mention of presenting consumers with reviews written by customers in various member states).

In the case at hand, the defendant argued that it did not intend to target consumers in Ireland with its services, and it did not target Ireland in any search engine optimisation. The court did not accept these arguments. It was not determinative that the defendant said on affidavit that they did not intend to target consumers in Ireland – intention had to be assessed objectively.

The court held that, in this case, the defendant did intend to establish relations with consumers from the EU and referred to the following factors: the cycling tours were organised to take place outside the UK; transport was arranged for the plaintiff from the airport in Sri Lanka, which would have entailed co-ordination with the plaintiff’s flights; the defendant’s website displays testimonials from persons of different nationalities, including one Irish person; and when booking the plaintiff had to create an online account and give her country of residence. The court also considered the fact that pricing for services was available in euros.

This case provides an important learning point for international companies who are currently or intending to market their goods or services to Irish consumers. It also shows that international companies who might not subjectively intend to sell their products in Ireland might nonetheless fall within the jurisdiction of the Irish courts because of the way their products are marketed online. It would be prudent for in-house counsel and other operators with similar roles to consider how this judgment might affect the risk profile of their companies and what steps might be taken in light of this decision.

1. https://courts.ie
2. https://eur-lex.europa.eu
3. https://curia.europa.eu