Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court has ruled that it does not have jurisdiction to hear the claims brought by three plaintiffs against companies engaged in content moderation for Facebook/Meta. The plaintiffs, former content moderators, alleged exposure to harmful content and inadequate support, seeking damages under Article 8(1) of Brussels I (recast). However, the court found no close connection or risk of irreconcilable judgments that would necessitate hearing the cases in Ireland. Additionally, in Ms. Senen's case, the presence of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in her employment contract pointed to the Spanish courts' jurisdiction. The applications to the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB) did not establish the Irish High Court as being "first seised" of the proceedings, as required for jurisdiction under Article 29 of Brussels I (recast).
jurisdiction, content moderation, Facebook/Meta, CCC Essen, CCC Barcelona, personal injuries summons, Article 8(1) of Brussels I (recast), exclusive jurisdiction clause, Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), High Court of Ireland, claims dismissal, employment contract, tortious liability, safe system of work, irreconcilable judgments, lis pendens rule, Article 29 of Brussels I (recast), Article 31(2) of Brussels I (recast).
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only fast reporting service for all Irish judgments over the past ten years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now