A married woman who claims she was raped by a work colleague during a business trip to Sweden may pursue her civil action for damages for the alleged rape and sexual assault, the High Court has decided.
Mr Justice Finnegan rejected an application by the defendant to stay the action on the ground that it would be more convenient or less expensive to have the matter litigated in Sweden.
In a reserved judgment yesterday, the judge said the woman claimed she was raped and subjected to sexual assault by the defendant in Sweden in May 1999. The defendant had sought to have the proceedings stayed in Ireland and to have the matter litigated in Sweden.
The judge said the defendant was domiciled in Ireland while the woman also claimed to be domiciled here. She said she was born in the United States, was married to an Irish citizen, and held both US and Irish citizenship. Mr Justice Finnegan said he accepted the woman's domicile was Irish.
He said Article 2 of the Brussels Convention of 1968, which had been incorporated into Irish law, set out the rule that a defendant domiciled in a contracting state was in general to be sued in the courts of that state. Article 3 set out the rule that a person domiciled in a contracting state might, in certain circumstances, be sued in the courts of another contracting state.
Mr Justice Finnegan said the effect of the convention was that the woman had a choice and could sue the defendant in the state in which he was domiciled or in the place where the alleged harmful event occurred - in this case, Sweden.
He was satisfied the High Court's discretion to stay proceedings had not survived the incorporation of the convention into Irish law.
Accordingly, there was no jurisdiction to stay the proceedings on the basis that it would be more convenient or less expensive to have the issues litigated in Sweden. Indeed, under Article 21 of the convention, the Swedish courts would be obliged to decline jurisdiction, he added.
