When accidents happen abroad, the first hurdle that must be overcome in seeking compensation in this country is to show that the claim falls within the jurisdiction of the English courts. That can be a far from straightforward task but, as one case showed, personal injury lawyers are well equipped to rise to the challenge.
The case concerned a trainee pilot who was undertaking a solo night flight exercise from an airfield in Portugal when he crashed and died. The representatives of his estate launched proceedings in England against the Portuguese flying school responsible for his training and his Portuguese flying instructor.
The claim was also brought against an English company that was alleged to be the flying school's parent company. The fact that the company was registered in England was vitally important in that it served as an 'anchor defendant', thereby enabling the claim to be brought within the jurisdiction of the English courts. It was agreed that Portuguese law applied to the question of liability for the accident.
The company sought summary judgment in its favour on the basis that it was not, in fact, the flying school's parent company. Although they were part of the same group, they were said to be on separate branches of the corporate tree. The company denied that it had any role in controlling or supervising the flying school's activities and argued that the claim against it was therefore bound to fail.
For their part, the estate representatives stuck by their contention that the company's relationship with the flying school was that of a parent. They asserted that the company held itself out as controlling and centrally managing the provision of commercial air training at multiple sites, including the flying school.
Dismissing the company's application, the High Court noted that there was some evidence to suggest that the company took control in a centralised manner of the training provided by the flying school. It was neither clear nor obvious that the estate had no real prospect of succeeding in its claim against the company. The ruling enabled the estate to proceed with its claim in England.