Aerospatiale V. Lee Kui Jack Notes

Aerospatiale v. Lee Kui Jack

Facts

On 16 December 1980 a Puma 330J helicopter crashed near Kuala Belait in Brunei. There were 12 people on board: all were killed. Among those killed was Yong Joon San (home was in Brunei).

The Puma helicopter which crashed was manufactured by S.N.I.A.S. in France in 1978. S.N.I.A.S. is a French company in the ownership of the French state. The helicopter in question was owned by an English company, British and Commonwealth Shipping Co. (Aviation) Ltd. ("British and Commonwealth"); but it was at all material times operated and serviced by Bristow Helicopters Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. ("Bristow Malaysia"), an associated company of Bristow Helicopters Ltd. ("Bristow U.K."), and was under contract to Sarawak Shell Bhd. and so was based at Miri Airport in Sarawak.

Cause of the accident was identified as a problem with the maintenance of the gearbox of the helicopter.

Proceedings were started by Yong Joon San's widow, Lee Kui Jak, on her own behalf as widow and (with her husband's brother) as administrator of her husband's estate.

Three sets of proceedings:

Three sets of proceedings were started, in December 1981, in Brunei, France, and Texas respectively. The Brunei proceedings were issued on 9 December 1981 against Bristow Malaysia as first defendants and S.N.I.A.S. as second defendants; they were served on S.N.I.A.S. in December 1982. It was alleged that Bristow Malaysia were solely responsible for the accident; as against S.N.I.A.S., allegations were made of negligent design and manufacture, but no particulars were given. The French proceedings were against S.N.I.A.S. alone. No further steps were taken in those proceedings, and they have been discontinued long ago. The Texas proceedings were also issued on 9 December 1981. Among the plaintiffs was a Richard J. Kittrell; it appears that he is a New York attorney who was appointed administrator for the purpose of the proceedings, and was as such simply a nominal plaintiff. There were eight defendants in the Texas proceedings, who fall into three groups: (1) S.N.I.A.S., together with two United States associates of S.N.I.A.S. - Aerospatiale Helicopter Corporation ("A.H.C."), a Texas corporation, and European Aerospace Corporation ("E.A.C."), a Delaware corporation. (2) Bristow Malaysia, together with two United States associated companies - Bristow Helicopters Inc., a Connecticut corporation, and Bristow Offshore Helicopters Inc., a Texas corporation. (3) Sarawak Shell Bhd., together with Shell Oil Co., a Delaware corporation. The plaintiffs' claim against S.N.I.A.S. was advanced under the Texas Wrongful Death Statute (section 71.031 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code)- jurisdiction being asserted on the basis that S.N.I.A.S. were doing business in Texas by selling their products to purchasers in Texas. Texas proceeedings were initiated because of (1) the more favourable Texas law on product liability, and (2) the higher level of damages awarded in courts in the United States.

Settlement with Bristow and Shell Companies: In the course of 1983, an agreement was reached whereby all proceedings as between the plaintiffs on the one hand, and the Bristow companies and the Shell companies on the other hand, were settled. A general release was granted to these companies by the plaintiffs and by Richard Kittrell. The settlement, together with an apportionment between the widow and her three children, was approved by the Chief Registrar in Brunei on 20 June 1984. S.N.I.A.S. were not parties to the settlement, and their Lordships were told that they were never invited to be parties to it.

In December 1986, having failed in their attempts to obtain dismissal of the proceedings against them and their associated companies in Texas, S.N.I.A.S. turned their attention to the possibility of obtaining an injunction from the Brunei court restraining the plaintiffs from continuing the Texas proceedings.

Undertakings by parties in Brunei Proceedings: Furthermore, during the hearing undertakings were given by both sides, no doubt with a view to fortifying their respective positions. The plaintiffs first stated that, if S.N.I.A.S. wished for trial by judge alone in Texas, the plaintiffs would agree to such a trial. Second, they accepted that, the law of Brunei being applicable both as to liability and quantum in respect of the trial of the matter in Texas, no claim lay against S.N.I.A.S. either (a) in consequence of strict liability, or (b) for punitive damages. SNIAS also gave undertakings including the following: (a) That the Texas proceedings shall be permitted to continue until completion of pre-trial discovery; (b) To cooperate in every practicable way in the admission to the Bar of Brunei Darussalam as ad hoc members for the purposes of this action of: William Thomas Jacks and Richard Warner Mithoff.

SNIAS claiming contribution from Bristow: In the course of the hearing before the Court of Appeal, a contribution notice was served on Bristow Malaysia by S.N.I.A.S. It has been suggested that this was in fact too late, because Bristow Malaysia were no longer parties to the action. But this was disputed, and in any event Bristow Malaysia have indicated their readiness to accept service within the jurisdiction of the Brunei court of any third party notice issued by S.N.I.A.S. It appears that, whereas Bristow Malaysia are vigorously resisting Texas jurisdiction on the ground that they have never done business in Texas, they have indicated their readiness to submit to the jurisdiction of the courts in Brunei to enable the whole case to be determined there. On the same day, 18 March 1987, S.N.I.A.S. accepted service of a writ issued against them on 16 December 1986 (one day before the expiry of the limitation period) by the owners of the crashed helicopter together with the insurers of the hull.

Holding

Lord Goff

Basic Principles

First, the jurisdiction is to be exercised when the "ends of justice" require it.

Second, where...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Conflict of Laws BCL Notes.