The court has power to make a declaration of non-liability in a transnational commercial dispute. It should exercise that power if it serves the aims of justice. This principle was established even though it was not applied in the test case.
The case concerned liability for an accident at Brussels Airport in 1998 involving an Airbus aircraft owned by Sabena. The accident was thought to have been caused by faulty landing gear which has been designed and manufactured by Dowty. Dowty sought a negative declaration so that its liability under the matter could be determined in a single case brought before the English courts.
The two issues for the court to decide was whether it had the territorial right to hear the case at all, and whether a negative declaration was appropriate. The court decided it did have territorial authority.
The issue of the negative declaration was discussed in greater detail. It was an unusual remedy because it reversed the usual roles in that the claimant was seeking to prove that the defendant could not bring a case against him. The normal procedure was to see if a person did bring a case and then defend it. In 1919, the court established the principle that where there is no legal action current or threatened there is no basis for issuing a declaration on the subject. That precedent had been followed as recently as 1998.
However the court held that the use of negative declarations had develeoped during the 20th century. There had been many situations where the use of such declarations had proved equitable and effective, such as in cases related to mentally ill people. The court should therefore consider the purpose and benefit of granting such a declaration. In doing so, the court should balance these considerations with any procedural problems which may arise from the parties being reversed from what would normally be their roles.
This case was one where a negative declaration could be effective. However Airbus had already started proceedings against Airbus in France. Under the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Civil and Commercial Matters of 1968, France was the proper country to hear such a claim, not England. Therefore such a declaration was not appropriate in this case.
Messier-Dowty Ltd v Sabeena SA. CA. The Times 14 March 2000.
[2000.3/6]