Fox v Steve Fellows Road Haulage Services: English court retains jurisdiction over Spanish workplace accident claims

The High Court has refused to set aside service out of the jurisdiction on two Spanish defendants in a personal injury claim arising from a forklift truck accident at a warehouse in Onda, Spain. In Fox v Steve Fellows Road Haulage Services Limited & Ors [2026] EWHC 1054 (KB), Mrs Justice Heather Williams held that England and Wales was clearly and distinctly the appropriate forum, and granted a first defendant's application to serve a Part 20 contribution claim on the same Spanish defendants.

The claimant, a British HGV driver employed by an English haulage company (D1), sustained a severe crush and degloving injury to his left foot when a forklift truck driven by a Spanish warehouse operator (D2) struck him during a collection of ceramic tiles. His foot was amputated below the knee following repatriation to England. D2's Spanish insurer was joined as third defendant (D3). The claimant's claim against D1 was accepted to be governed by English law and could only proceed in this jurisdiction, as any Spanish claim against D1 was time-barred.

Serious issue to be tried

D2 and D3 argued there was no real prospect of the claimant establishing fault, relying on CCTV footage said to show him walking without purpose into the path of an oncoming truck, and contending that contributory negligence under Spanish law could extinguish the claim entirely. Williams J rejected the argument. The pleaded case under Article 1902 of the Spanish Civil Code — which imposes fault-based liability broadly comparable to the English law of negligence — was clearly articulated. It was neither appropriate to go behind the Particulars of Claim at a jurisdictional hearing nor possible for the court to assess contributory negligence without evidence. The possibility that contributory fault might be assessed at a level extinguishing the claim was insufficient to defeat a serious issue to be tried at this stage.

Appropriate forum: multiplicity of proceedings decisive

The connecting factors were acknowledged to point in both directions. The accident occurred in Spain, Spanish law governed the claims against D2 and D3, and both defendants were domiciled in Spain. Against that, the claimant and D1 were domiciled in England, the majority of the loss was sustained here, and the claim against D1 — which D1 was robustly defending — could only be tried in this jurisdiction.

The decisive consideration was the risk of irreconcilable judgements. Unlike in Vedanta Resources [2019] UKSC 20, the claimant had no option to consolidate proceedings in a single foreign forum: D1 could not be sued in Spain. Trying the claim against D2 and D3 in Spain while the claim against D1 proceeded in England would require two courts to make factual findings on overlapping issues — including whether D2's warehouse arrangements created a safety risk, and the extent of any contributory negligence — with no mechanism to ensure consistency. Williams J described that prospect as "highly undesirable".

The court also dismissed the suggestion that the claimant should await the outcome of proceedings against D1 alone before pursuing D2 and D3. Given D1's defence attributing blame to D2, a partial or failed claim against D1 would have left the claimant pursuing a second set of Spanish proceedings on substantially the same facts, with considerable delay and duplication of expense.

Part 20 contribution claim

Williams J also granted D1 permission to serve its Part 20 contribution claim on D2 and D3 out of the jurisdiction. A threshold dispute arose as to whether English or Spanish law governed the contribution claim under Rome II. The court found at least a realistic prospect of English law applying under Article 20 (multiple liability) or, alternatively, Article 4. As D2 and D3 conceded a serious issue to be tried if English law applied, the requirement was satisfied. Even on the assumption that Spanish law governed, the court declined to resolve on a summary basis whether Article 1145 of the Spanish Civil Code or Article 76 of the Insurance Contracts Law precluded D1's claim at the pre-judgement stage, noting the limited and contested evidence before it. The appropriate forum analysis mirrored the findings on the main claim: the contribution claim was so closely bound up with the claimant's action that hearing it elsewhere would be plainly contrary to the interests of justice.