The case of James Fox v Steve Fellows Road Haulage Services Limited, Lopez and Axa Seguros Generales SA brings a further interesting dimension to the more frequent battles that we usually see in the international road traffic sphere. This time, a Claimant has succeeded in using the provision of Practice Direction 6B 3.1 (3) in his claim against his employer, a so-called anchor Defendant, to secure his claim against the Spanish entity and their Spanish insurer, AXA, in the courts of England and Wales.
The Claimant, Mr James Fox, was an HGV driver employed by Steve Fellows Road Haulage Services Ltd, the First Defendant. He sustained serious personal injuries in Spain when he came into contact with a forklift truck while attending the Second Defendant’s warehouse in Onda in Spain, to collect goods. In addition to jurisdiction, the issues of liability and applicable law are disputed.
Proceedings were issued in England and Wales against the First Defendant and the Spanish-based Defendants (Second and Third Defendants). On 11 August 2025, Master Eastman granted the Claimant’s without notice application to serve the claim on the Second and Third Defendants out of the jurisdiction. The Spanish Defendants challenged the English Court’s jurisdiction and applied to set aside service out of the jurisdiction.
On 8 December 2025, the First Defendant filed both a Defence and a Part 20 Claim seeking an indemnity or contribution from the Second and Third Defendants and on the same date they sought permission to serve the Part 20 claim out of the jurisdiction.
It was accepted by the parties that a significant part of the Claimant’s damage was sustained within this jurisdiction and that the Claimant had established that the jurisdictional gateways in PD 6B para 3.1(3) and/or para 3.1(9) applied in respect of his claim against the Second and Third Defendant. However, the following matters were disputed in relation to the Second and Third Defendant's Applications:
- Whether the Claimant has shown that there is a serious issue to be tried on the merits, that is a substantial question of fact or law or both; and, if so
- Whether England is the appropriate forum for the Claimant's claim, the so-called forum conveniens test.
The Second and Third Defendants accepted that Article 1902 of the Spanish Civil Code imposed a fault-based duty on the Second Defendant in relation to the safety of those using his warehouse. They accepted that the Court should approach the question of whether there was a serious issue to be tried by reference to the facts that were pleaded in the Particulars of Claim. Their Counsel argued that the Claimant had failed to show there was a serious issue to be tried against the Second Defendant or, in turn, the Third Defendant as contributory negligence could constitute a full defence under Spanish law. The evidence before the Court at this stage showed there was no real prospect of the Claimant establishing fault on the part of the Second defendant in relation to his accident.
The Court rejected these arguments and held that no basis has been shown for going behind the pleaded allegations in the Particulars of Claim. The Claimant’s pleading set out a clearly articulated case of fault on the part of the Second Defendant which is capable of constituting a breach of the duty imposed by Article 1902. The reliance on contributory negligence could not be relied upon by the Second and Third Defendants at this juncture.
In respect of the issue of forum conveniens, the Court considered the relevant factors such as the place of the accident, the governing law, the connection of the parties, practical convenience and multiplicity of proceedings and held that the Claimant has shown that England and Wales are distinctly the appropriate forum for the trial of his claim against the Second and Third Defendants.
Having heard the First Defendant's Application, the Court also held that the First Defendant showed that there was a serious issue to be tried regarding the merits of its Part 20 claim against the Second and Third Defendants. They also established that England and Wales was the appropriate forum for hearing its contribution claim. It was accepted that the PD 6B para 3.1(4) jurisdictional gateway applied and they could claim against the Spanish entity and insurer in the same set of proceedings in England and Wales.
