By Jennifer Lund & Kieran Mitchell
|Published 23 June 2026
Cross‑border personal injury claims have become noticeably harder to predict since Brexit.
While the rules on applicable law have largely stayed the same, the loss of the Brussels regime has fundamentally changed how courts approach jurisdiction. The result is a shift away from certainty towards a more discretionary, case‑by‑case process.
For insurers and claims teams, jurisdiction is no longer a routine procedural step. It has become a key strategic issue that can influence the direction, cost, and complexity of a claim.
English courts now apply the common law test derived from Spiliada Maritime Corp v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 460.
In simple terms, the court asks where the claim can most appropriately and practically be heard. There is no longer a rigid framework. Instead, courts balance a range of factors and reach an overall judgment based on what is fair and workable in each case.
This means outcomes depend less on fixed legal rules and more on how the facts are evaluated.
Recent case law shows a clear trend. Courts are placing increasing weight on how litigation will operate in practice, rather than focusing purely on formal connections such as where the accident occurred.
In Graham v Fidelidade Companhia de Seguros SA [2024] EWHC 2010 (KB), the accident took place in Portugal and Portuguese law applied. Nonetheless, the High Court retained jurisdiction in England. The decisive factors were practical. The claimant had serious injuries, was now living in England, and would face real difficulty participating in proceedings abroad. His medical treatment, expert evidence, and witnesses were also based here.
The court accepted that the place of the accident and the governing law were relevant but made clear that they were not determinative where other factors pointed more strongly towards England.
A similar emphasis appears in Chmielnicki v Sopockie Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń (Manchester County Court, 23 April 2026, unreported). There, the claim arose from a Polish accident involving Polish parties, yet the English court retained jurisdiction. The reasoning focused on the fact that the claimants were living in England, receiving treatment here, and that the evidence relating to their losses was centred in this jurisdiction.
The case suggests a developing trend, particularly in injury claims, towards focusing on where the consequences of the accident are experienced and managed, rather than where the incident itself occurred.
At the same time, the case law shows that results are not uniform. In Aulla v Reale Seguros Generales SA (unreported, 2024), decided shortly after Graham, the court reached the opposite conclusion and declined jurisdiction in favour of Spain. In that case, greater weight was placed on the location of the accident, the application of foreign law, and the efficiency of litigating abroad.
Both cases applied the same legal test. The difference lay in how the facts were assessed. This is the key point for insurers: the law itself is stable, but outcomes vary because the exercise is discretionary and fact‑sensitive.
Another important development can be seen in Fox v Steve Fellows Road Haulage Services Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 1054 (KB). In that case, the High Court emphasised the importance of dealing with connected claims in a single forum. The dispute involved an English employer, a Spanish accident, and foreign defendants, together with contribution claims between parties.
The court concluded that splitting the claim between jurisdictions would create unnecessary duplication, increase costs, and risk inconsistent findings. England was therefore identified as the most appropriate forum because it could resolve all aspects of the dispute together.
This reflects a strong judicial preference to avoid fragmented litigation, particularly where multiple parties and overlapping issues are involved.
The direction of travel is clear. The place of the accident still matters and remains an important starting point, but it is no longer decisive on its own. The governing law continues to play a role, but it rarely determines the outcome in isolation. Courts are increasingly focused on practical considerations such as where witnesses are based, where evidence is located, and how efficiently a claim can be managed.
As a result, the outcome of a jurisdiction challenge may turn on relatively fine factual distinctions. Predictability has inevitably reduced.
This shift has real operational consequences. Jurisdiction can affect the value of claims, the evidential burden, and the overall cost and timescale of litigation. Decisions about whether to challenge jurisdiction must now be taken earlier and with a clearer understanding of how courts are likely to approach the practical realities of the case.
At the same time, the increased uncertainty means that such decisions involve greater risk than under the previous regime.
In this more discretionary environment, early and informed advice is critical. Our Travel and Tourism Team works closely with insurers and claims teams at the outset of a claim to assess jurisdictional exposure and identify the most effective strategy. This involves analysing where key witnesses and documents are located, how the claim would be conducted in competing jurisdictions, and the practical implications of each option.
Where a jurisdiction challenge is appropriate, we ensure it is built on a strong evidential foundation. Where England is likely to retain jurisdiction, we focus on efficient case management and minimising the risks associated with cross‑border litigation, particularly in complex or multi‑party disputes.
Our experience across international claims allows us to provide clear, pragmatic advice in what is now a more uncertain landscape. Click here to know more about our Travel and Tourism team.
Jurisdiction is no longer a technical formality. It is a strategic decision that can shape the entire lifespan of a claim.
The critical question is no longer simply where proceedings can be issued, but where a court is most likely to decide the claim should be heard, and how best to position your case in light of that reality.
