Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 19 AUGUST 2013

Consumers And The Brussels I Regulation

In Harkin v Towpik & Others1 the Irish High Court considered an application brought by the defendants, among other things, to set aside the service of the summons on them on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiff's claim, as claimed under the EU Brussels I Regulation (44/2001).

IrelandConsumer Protection

Introduction

In Harkin v Towpik & Others1 the Irish High Court considered an application brought by the defendants, among other things, to set aside the service of the summons on them on the grounds that the court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine the plaintiff's claim, as claimed under the EU Brussels I Regulation (44/2001).

Background

In 2009 the plaintiff wished to have a breast reduction and searched online for the procedure. In doing so she came across the UK-based website of the third named defendant, which advertised the availability of cosmetic medical procedures in Poland. The plaintiff made her own arrangements to fly to Warsaw in July 2009, where she attended the clinic of the second named defendant and met the first named defendant, who explained the risks and likely outcomes. She duly paid for the procedure and the following day, having signed a consent form following an additional examination, she had the operation. She had two further

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from