Qorti tal-Appell; 2020-06-12; Saint James (Capua) Hospital Limited vs. Lynda Barker; 547/2018/1
Decision by national courts in the field of European Union law — ECLI:MT:ASCT:2020:121637
Date: 2020-06-12
Subject matter: Judicial cooperation in civil matters
Origin: Malta

82020MT0612(51)_ENG_SUMJURE
JURE summary
JURE summary
This case regards a question international jurisdiction of the Maltese courts resolved by the Qorti tal-Appell (hereinafter ‘the Court of Appeal’).
A company operating a hospital in Malta (hereinafter ‘the plaintiff’) brought a case before the mit-Tribunal għal Talbiet Żgħar (hereinafter ‘the Court of First Instance’) against a natural person domiciled in the United Kingdom (hereinafter ‘the defendant’) for payment for medical services provided to her during a holiday in Malta.
The defendant objected, claiming a lack of jurisdiction of the Maltese courts. In its response, the plaintiff relied mainly on Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (1) according to which jurisdiction shall be governed by the ‘place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided’.
The Court of First Instance recalled that the defendant is a foreign national domiciled abroad. According to the general jurisdiction clause stipulated by Article 4 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast), ‘persons domiciled in a Member State shall, whatever their nationality, be sued in the courts of that Member State’. The Regulation indeed provides several exceptions, which prevail over this general principle, but the Court of First Instance excluded the applicability of the special jurisdiction clauses, such as prorogation of jurisdiction (Article 25) or jurisdiction over consumer contracts (Articles 17 and 18). With regards to Article 7, the Court of First Instance held that the obligation which the plaintiff is trying to enforce relates to the payment for medical services, but it was not specified where the payment should be made. Then, in compliance with Article 6 of the same Regulation, the provisions of national law provide that payment is to be made where the debtor resides. The Court of First Instance declared lack of its jurisdiction to hear the case.
The plaintiff appealed to the Court of Appeal alleging that the Court of First Instance erred (a) in the application of the general jurisdiction clause and ignoring the reference to special jurisdiction under Article 7, (b) in assessing the jurisdiction over consumer contracts and (c) in the application of the national law with reference to Article 6 of the Regulation.
The Court of Appeal confirmed that by the obligation in question the defendant contracted the medical services provided by the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to pay for those services. The evidence of the case suggests that the defendant may have a reason for not paying for the medical services provided to her due to the performance and quality of those services. Therefore, Article 7 of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) may establish jurisdiction of Maltese court. The first grounds of appeal are therefore well-founded and justified.
With regards to the jurisdiction over the consumer contract, the Court of Appeal denied the plaintiff's allegations according to which an advertisement for the hospital in the United Kingdom justifies Maltese jurisdiction under Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I Regulation (recast). The CEO of the hospital did not confirm such advertisement, but moreover, a tourist abroad who needs urgent medical care in a hospital is not likely to decide to which hospital they should it go because of advertising it had seen at home. The third grounds of appeal was not considered.
The Court of Appeal annulled the first instance decision and referred the case back to the Court of First Instance for the continuation of the case on the merits.
(1) Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.