Fs Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC (Appellant) v Brownlie (Respondent)

The case of FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie concerned the jurisdiction of the English courts to hear claims in tort for a road accident that occurred in Egypt in 2010. The claimant, Lady Brownlie, had been seriously injured, her husband and daughter were killed, and her grandchildren were injured in the accident. The claim form was issued in England in 2012 but named the wrong defendant company. After a series of appeals and cross-appeals, the Supreme Court allowed the claimant to amend the claim form to substitute the correct defendant, an Egyptian company. The Court of Appeal subsequently granted permission to serve the amended claim form out of the jurisdiction in Egypt. The present appeal raised two issues: whether the claims in tort passed through the gateway in CPR PD 6B, paragraph 3.1(9) for suing a defendant outside the jurisdiction, and whether the claims had a reasonable prospect of success. The Supreme Court rejected the defendant's contentions on both issues, concluding that the appeal should be dismissed. The court held that the word “damage” in the tort gateway should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, which extends to the harm sustained by the claimant, including physical and financial consequences, and that this was supported by a line of first instance decisions and decisions from other common law jurisdictions. The court also held that the claimant was not required to adduce evidence of Egyptian law, as the only claims she could advance were those available to her under Egyptian law, and that she could rely on English law in the absence of satisfactory evidence of foreign law.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal on both issues, with the majority of four to one concluding that the appeal should be dismissed. The court held that the claims in tort passed through the gateway in CPR PD 6B, paragraph 3.1(9) for suing a defendant outside the jurisdiction, and that the claims had a reasonable prospect of success. The court also held that the claimant was not required to adduce evidence of Egyptian law, as the only claims she could advance were those available to her under Egyptian law, and that she could rely on English law in the absence of satisfactory evidence of foreign law. The court dismissed the appeal on both issues, with the majority of four to one concluding that the appeal should be dismissed.