The Dekagram: 27th April 2026

This week Tom Collins brings us a tale from the coalface – an example of a jurisdictional challenge successfully resisted, with reflections on the evidence required in these cases, which – it seems to us – are becoming more and more prevalent in the post-Brexit, pre-Lugano world.

English Courts Accept Jurisdiction over Polish RTA

Chmielnicki v Sopockie Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń (Manchester County Court, 23 April 2026)

Last Thursday (23 April 2026), Tom Collins successfully resisted a jurisdictional challenge brought by a Polish insurer in respect of an RTA in Poland. Had the challenge succeeded, the Claimants, a family of three, would have been consigned to pursuing a claim in Poland long after limitation had expired.

The decision of Her Honour Judge Evans, sitting in the Manchester County Court, is a timely reminder of the care with which claimants seeking to resist such challenges need to construct and present their case.

The Facts

The claimants—Mr and Mrs Chmielnicki, and their twelve-year-old son—suffered injuries in a rear-end shunt at a pedestrian crossing in Hel, Poland on 25 August 2021. The defendant’s insured, a Polish national, was recorded by police as having failed to keep a safe distance. The claimants returned to England within a week and underwent medical treatment here. Medical reports revealed moderately severe injuries: whiplash, back pain, radicular symptoms, and post-traumatic stress symptoms.

Proceedings were issued shortly before limitation and served on the defendant in Poland. The defendant applied to set aside service and for a declaration that the English court had no jurisdiction.

The Three-Stage Test

HHJ Evans held that the Claimants (who bore the burden of proof) succeeded on the three-stage test, summarised in the decision of Warby LJ in Soriano v Forensic News LLC [2021] EWCA Civ 1952.

The Gateway. The claimants relied on PD 6B, para 3.1(9)(a)—damage sustained within the jurisdiction. Following the Supreme Court’s decision in FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie (2021) UKSC 45 (“Brownlie II“), “damage” means actionable harm caused by the tortious act, including all bodily and consequential financial effects. The claimants’ pain, suffering, loss of amenity, and consequential financial losses were experienced, continuing to be experienced, and managed in England during their residence here. This clearly satisfied the gateway.

The Merits. The court accepted that there was a serious issue to be tried. Polish law (Art. 415 of the Polish Civil Code and the strict-liability regime of Art. 436) provided a clear basis for liability. The police findings, and the factual characterization of the defendant’s insured as having “committed the offence,” provided a prima facie case. While the defendant had not formally articulated a defence, the threshold of a “real, as opposed to fanciful” prospect of success was met.

Forum Conveniens: HHJ Evans concluded that, applying the “first stage” of the House of Lords decision in Spiliada, England was the “natural forum”—the forum with the most real and substantial connection to the claim—for a number of reasons:

• The claimants are English-domiciled and have spent the entirety of their recovery in England.
• The medical experts (both treating professionals and quantum experts) are based in England.
• The voluminous documentary evidence (medical records, treatment notes, expert reports) is in England.
• The defendant, a major insurer, had demonstrated that it could instruct solicitors in England and conduct litigation here.

The court was unpersuaded by arguments that the location of the tort, the applicable law, or the defendant’s Polish domicile, displaced this strong cluster of connecting factors. Given the weak liability position, there was unlikely to be any factual evidence from the Defendant’s insured and the availability of video-link evidence (post-Ditto Ltd v Drive-Thru Records LLC) meant that the physical location of witnesses carries limited weight in any event.

HHJ Evans however did not accept that prosecuting the claim in Poland would lead to a substantial injustice to the claimants (Spiliada “stage two”): The claimants had advanced evidence from a Polish lawyer about the absence of Conditional Fee Agreement equivalents, statutory caps on recoverable costs, upfront court fees, and the practical burden of travel to Poland for examinations and hearings. The Court held that the evidence lacked specificity and, without direct evidence of the funding arrangement in England, no clear comparison could be made.

Since England was the natural forum, this finding did not affect the outcome. Yet it signals judicial caution about extending the “access to justice” doctrine to every case where English-style CFAs were not available in the foreign jurisdiction (following the Vedanta/Limbu/Da Silva line of cases, which establish that the absence of comparable funding may amount to a denial of substantial justice).

Practical Takeaways: Mounting an Effective Jurisdictional Defence

The decision offers several practical reminders for practitioners defending jurisdiction challenges.

1. Factual v. Expert Evidence

Evidence as to the law and legal system in the foreign jurisdiction is likely to be central to any jurisdictional challenge. But is this necessarily expert evidence? In Da Silva Bourne J endorsed a practical distinction: evidence about how the foreign legal system works in the lawyer’s experience is admissible as factual evidence; evidence expressing opinions about the comparative advantages and disadvantages of the foreign legal system crosses into expert evidence and will require permission under CPR 35.4.

Practitioners should ensure, as far as possible, that evidence from foreign lawyers is clearly framed as factual—describing the procedural realities, the mechanisms of cost recovery, the practical burden of court-appointed expert examinations, and the documented experience of litigants in similar claims. Where opinion evidence is essential, permission should be sought at the earliest opportunity.

2. Evidence on Foreign Costs and Funding Must Be Detailed and Comparative

A witness statement from a foreign lawyer must not merely assert that CFAs do not exist in the foreign jurisdiction: It must provide granular detail on the specific funding arrangements available, and—crucially—how those arrangements compare with the claimant’s actual funding position.

3. The Strength of Connecting Factors Matters

The claimants’ domicile in England, the location of medical experts, and the concentration of quantum evidence in England proved decisive. A methodical, tailored witness statement from the claimant (or solicitor on behalf of the claimant) detailing the claimant’s residence, the location of ongoing medical and rehabilitative treatment, the management of losses, and the location of key witnesses is essential. This evidence should not be generic; it should be specific to the claim and demonstrate the “centre of gravity” of the dispute.

Tom Collins acted for the successful Claimants, instructed by Nicholas Lukacs on behalf of Slater & Gordon

About the Author

Called in 2010, Tom Collins is ranked in Chambers and Partners in travel: international personal injury and in the Legal 500 as a leading junior in personal injury. He is said by clients to be ‘exceptionally bright’, an ‘excellent advocate’ and ‘extremely well prepared and very empathetic’. He has considerable experience across a wide range of travel and private international law disputes and has advised claimants and defendants in multi-party actions.