Irish courts have jurisdiction to hear case against Belgian company where harmful event occurred in Ireland

Jurisdiction - jurisdiction of the Irish courts to hear the plaintiff’s claim against the defendants arising out of the purchase by the plaintiff from the first defendant of a luxury coach which had been manufactured by the second defendant – first defendant is a UK company – second defendant is a Belgian company - conditional appearances for the purposes of contesting jurisdiction - court’s jurisdiction falls to be determined under EU Council Regulation 1215/2012 – Brussels regulation - principal rule is that jurisdiction is primarily determined by the place of the defendant’s domicile - Court does not have a freestanding discretion to accept jurisdiction where a case does not clearly come within these rules based on an assessment of the closeness of the connection nor the degree to which a defendant might reasonably have foreseen litigation in a jurisdiction other than that of its domicile, although considering the connection and whether it was foreseeable that a defendant might be sued in a particular jurisdiction may help a court in determining whether a particular claim comes within the rules - court must apply the special rules as they have been framed in the Regulation and does not have discretionary jurisdiction going beyond those rules - jurisdictional clause - Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) are mutually exclusive such that a claim arising out of a contractual relationship between parties cannot simultaneously be tortious - s a matter of EU law, the entire of the plaintiff’s claim against the UK defendant is one the legal basis for which is an alleged breach of the rights and obligations set out in the contract between them and that the terms of this contract would have to be taken into account in deciding the claim in tort - place of performance of the obligations under the contract are largely irrelevant since the Brussels Regulation’s deeming provision takes priority in a contract of this type - existence of a fully concluded oral agreement between these parties as of November 2012 is inconsistent with all of the steps taken - onus is on the UK defendant to demonstrate the existence of a contractual clause in the agreement between the parties under which the jurisdictional rules of Brussels Regulation are displaced - satisfied that the UK defendant’s standard terms and conditions, including the jurisdiction clause, were incorporated into that agreement - jurisdiction of the High Court over the plaintiff’s claim against the Belgian defendant depends on whether Ireland can be regarded as a place where the harmful event giving rise to the plaintiff’s claim - principles relevant to determining whether a plaintiff has established a basis for relying on the special jurisdiction rule contained in Article 7(2) - plaintiff has discharged the onus of proof upon it to show that the harmful event, meaning in this instance the actual damage, occurred in Ireland –