High Court confirms English jurisdiction in significant post‑Brexit cross‑border injury claim

The High Court of England and Wales has confirmed that the English courts have jurisdiction to hear a complex cross-border personal injury claim brought by a UK worker who sustained life-changing injuries while working in Spain.

In a judgment handed down 6 May 2026, the court rejected a jurisdiction challenge brought by the Spanish defendant and its insurer, confirming that England and Wales is the appropriate forum for all claims arising from the incident. The ruling allows the closely connected claims being brought against both a UK and two EU-based defendants to be determined together, avoiding parallel proceedings and the risk of irreconcilable judgments in different jurisdictions.

Background to the claim

The claim arises from an accident at a Spanish warehouse in February 2023. The claimant, Jimmy, an English resident employed by a UK haulage company, sustained a severe crush and degloving injury to his left foot when he was struck by a forklift truck operated by the Spanish warehouse owner. Despite undergoing emergency reconstructive surgery in Spain, the injury ultimately required a below-knee amputation following his repatriation to England.

The jurisdiction challenge

Jimmy alleges that responsibility for the accident rests both with his UK employer and the Spanish warehouse operator. Given the cross-border nature of the claim, there was a risk that proceedings would need to be pursued separately in England and Spain, increasing cost and delay and creating the potential for irreconcilable judgments. The warehouse operator's Spanish insurer is also a party to the claim.

To avoid this, proceedings were issued in the English High Court, with permission obtained to serve the Spanish defendant and its insurer outside the jurisdiction. The Spanish parties challenged the English court's jurisdiction, arguing that Spain was the more appropriate forum for the dispute.

The High Court's decision

In rejecting that challenge, the court emphasised that its task was to identify the single jurisdiction in which the claims against all defendants could most appropriately be tried. Mrs Justice Heather Williams found that there was significant overlap between the claims and held that it would be "highly undesirable" for them to be heard in different jurisdictions and that the arguments advanced on behalf of the Spanish defendants, do not come close to displacing that general position.

The court also confirmed that related contribution proceedings brought by the UK employer against the Spanish parties could be heard in England, reinforcing that all claims arising from the accident should be resolved together in the English courts.

Why this decision matters

The judgment is an important post-Brexit example of the English courts adopting a pragmatic approach to cross-border litigation. Since the UK's departure from the EU, injured claimants can no longer rely on EU jurisdiction rules to bring proceedings in England and Wales and must be able to demonstrate that they pass through the relevant gateways under English procedural law as well as demonstrating England and Wales is the most convenient forum to try the claim.

This judgment confirms that closely connected claims can and should be heard together in England where justice and practicality require it. This reduces procedural barriers for seriously injured claimants, helping to ensure timely access to justice and compensation at a critical point in their recovery.

The case will now proceed to address liability and the compensation required to meet Jimmy's long-term needs, including prosthetics, future care and adapted accommodation.

Jimmy is represented by Stewarts, with senior associate Rebecca Huxford from the International Injury practice, acting on his behalf. She says:

"This was a complex jurisdiction challenge, and the Court's decision is an important and pragmatic example of how the English courts are responding to cross-border disputes in the post-Brexit landscape.

"Seriously injured claimants already face enormous challenges following life-changing incidents. This judgment recognises the importance of dealing with closely connected claims together, avoiding unnecessary duplication of proceedings, delay and cost, and allowing injured people to focus on rebuilding their lives."

• Share this on LinkedIn
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Facebook
• Email link
• Print this page