Cutting Through the Snowstorm: Clyde & Co successfully defend £20 million cross-border claim

In a High Court claim under the Package Travel Regulations 2018, our International & Travel team successfully defended proceedings brought amid a flurry of contested facts. Our approach was able to carve a path through the litigation, maintaining clarity and control throughout, achieving a decisive outcome for our client in a complex cross-border dispute.

ANDREW CANNESTRA v MCLAREN AUTOMOTIVE EVENTS LIMITED [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB)

Clyde & Co's International and Travel team, led by Craig Evans and assisted by Thomas Byrne, successfully represented McLaren Automotive Events Limited in the High Court, securing a complete dismissal of a personal injury claim valued up to £20 million brought by a Floridian neurosurgeon. The judgment, handed down by Mr Justice Ritchie on 18 July 2025, is a significant win for our client, McLaren and for establishing and applying local safety standards to claims brought under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018. Additionally, the judgment serves as a stark reminder of the potential pitfalls when instructing experts outside of the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Background

The claim arose from a snowmobile accident during a McLaren-hosted ice-driving experience in Lapland. Dr Cannestra, a neurosurgeon from Florida and a McLaren customer, and his partner purchased a luxury experience to drive McLaren supercars on ice in Arctic driving conditions. Adjacent to this event, participants could drive snowmobiles around a beginner-friendly circular track, although it was not a mandatory event.

During the course of this safari, and following the snowmobile guides' briefing, Dr Cannestra agreed to change the snowmobile mode from 'eco' to 'standard' to give a more sporty ride. After navigating most of the course safely, Dr Cannestra lost control of his snowmobile and collided with a tree. He alleged that, as a result of this incident, he suffered orthopaedic injuries along with a severe traumatic brain injury that meant he was no longer able to practise as a neurosurgeon. Bringing a claim in the High Court, Dr Cannestra alleged that McLaren's subcontractors and suppliers of the snowmobiling experience failed to provide adequate instruction and guidance to him and his partner, leading to his collision with a tree. The claim was brought under the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018, with allegations of negligence and breach of contract. The provisionally pleaded value of the claim was just over £14m, however, most of the Claimant's claims were unparticularised; the true value of the claim that could have been brought against McLaren was estimated to have been in the region of £20 million or greater.

Following a lengthy eight-day liability trial, the Court found that Dr Cannestra's own error caused the accident – accidental throttle use during a left-hand turn – despite having been properly briefed and instructed in the correct and safe use of a snowmobile, and having been correctly and safely guided around the beginner-friendly circular track. The claim was dismissed in its entirety, with Ritchie J commenting on the implausibility of the Claimant's case and his awareness of the legal process, given he is a medico-legal expert in the USA:

"I found his evidence illogical and contrived. For a man with substantial experience of driving super cars, with very high intelligence and a clear understanding of the dangers of driving at speed on corners, he based his case on ignoring those dangers and desperately wanting to keep up with a guide."

Defence

From the outset, McLaren staunchly maintained that there was no negligence, its supplier, Luxury Action Oy, complied with all relevant local Finnish safety standards and provided the Claimant and his partner with a safety briefing covering all of the essential information to keep the Claimant reasonably safe. Before the accident, Dr Cannestra signed a liability waiver form acknowledging that snowmobiles are inherently dangerous machines; and he was provided with a detailed briefing on how to drive and handle the vehicle.

The evidence obtained by Clyde & Co, comprising expert reports covering snowmobile use, Finnish local standards in the field of guided snowmobile tours and accident reconstruction, and numerous factual witness statements, amongst several hundred pages of relevant disclosure, supported the view that:

• The guides gave a safety briefing that complied with Finnish safety standards;
• That the change in snowmobile's mode from 'eco' to 'standard' had no causative bearing on the accident occurring;
• The guide was not speeding away from the Claimant, nor was he out of sight at the time of the accident; and
• The accident occurred due to the Claimant accidentally pressing the throttle when turning left and that nothing could have been done, by McLaren or the guide, to avoid this.

One of the core aspects of the defence was the factual evidence of the two guides involved in the Claimant's tour. The evidence of the guides proved pivotal in McLaren's successful defence. Both guides were found to be credible, honest, and consistent in their accounts, with Ritchie J commending their straightforward delivery and lack of guile. Their evidence established that the Claimant had received a thorough safety briefing, including specific instructions on throttle control during left-hand turns – a key issue in the case. The lead guide's account of the accident, corroborated by contemporaneous medical records and post-incident communications, was preferred over the Claimant's shifting narrative. Together, their evidence dismantled the core allegations of negligence and reinforced the conclusion that the Claimant's own error caused the accident.

Also central to the defence was the evidence of McLaren's accident reconstruction expert, Mr Mark Wright, whose analysis was praised by the Court as "thoughtful and well researched." This testimony stood in stark contrast to that of the Claimant's accident reconstruction expert, Mr Craig Arnold, whose assumptions were found to be "deeply faulted" and "inherently unlikely." Mr Wright, instructed by Clyde & Co, was a former snowmobile collision investigation auditer with the Ontario and Toronto police, someone very familiar with vehicle incidents on snow. Mr Arnold, instructed by Stewarts, is a renowned accident reconstruction expert in the road traffic accident sphere but had no relevant experience with snowmobiles or accidents occurring on the snow.

Ultimately, the Court preferred Mr Wright's expert evidence, which serves as a reminder to obtain expert evidence tailored to your case. Mr Wright's ability to distil complex biomechanical and engineering concepts into clear, persuasive evidence was instrumental in undermining the Claimant's case. His credibility and impartiality were repeatedly affirmed by the Court, which noted that "where Mr Wright and Mr Arnold's opinions clashed, I generally accept the opinions of Mr Wright."

Practitioners in the wider cross-border casualty sphere will know the challenges of securing relevant experts to a given case, whether it is a health and safety expert in Spain or an accident reconstruction expert with a focus on snowmobiling collisions. Where possible, an expert with direct local or subject matter knowledge should always be preferred. This issue is even more critical when it comes to instructing a local standards expert, it is easy to find an English expert willing to opine on foreign local standards, but this is often a flawed logic. On this matter, we were able to instruct a local standards expert who was familiar with the locally accepted practices when it comes to commercial snowmobile guided tours in Lapland. We instructed Mr Jaakko Leinonen, a Senior Investigative Officer with TUKES (Finnish Safety and Chemicals Agency), a government agency responsible for overseeing the safe implementation of guided snowmobile tours in Finland. TUKES is also responsible for providing written guidance to snowmobile tour providers in Finland and for auditing companies' safety practices. Mr Leinonen provided extremely clear and useful evidence to the Court setting out the relevant local safety standards expected of snowmobile tour providers in Finland.

Pitfalls of Foreign Experts

The case also serves as a cautionary tale about the risks of instructing foreign experts unfamiliar with the standards and expectations of English litigation. Our snowmobile operations expert, Mr Stanley Gale, was criticised by the Court for acting as an advocate rather than an impartial expert. Mr Justice Ritchie found that Mr Gale "ignored the Claimant's evidence and adopted the guides' evidence".

This judgment underscores the importance of ensuring that expert witnesses – particularly those from outside of this jurisdiction – are properly briefed on their duties under CPR Part 35; failure to do so can significantly undermine a party's case. Mr Gale had extensive experience of appearing in US courts, where the role of an expert has significant differences from that in England & Wales. It's imperative that all experts, particularly those with experience in courts where their role is more adversarial, are given a chance to fully understand their obligations and the nuances of English procedure.

Strategy/takeaways

The Court's findings reaffirm the importance of aligning expert evidence with the pleaded case. The Claimant's pleaded case was that, in an attempt to catch up to a guide who he says was speeding away and out of sight, he lost control of the snowmobile and collided with a tree. During the trial, Richtie J gave the Claimant a number of opportunities to apply for permission to amend his pleaded case, but such opportunities were not taken. Also during the trial, the Claimant's experts both admitted that a likely cause of the accident was the accidental use of the throttle, which was contrary to the Claimant's pleaded case. This lack of coherence was ultimately fatal to the claim.

Moreover, the judgment provides valuable guidance on the application of local safety standards in international travel claims. The Court accepted that McLaren's subcontractor, Luxury Action, had complied with Finnish safety norms specifically in relation to the level of instruction and provision of equipment that were provided, and that the decision to switch the snowmobile to Standard mode was within the bounds of reasonable judgment and that, in any event, it had no causative potency. The case may be seen as guidance on where the line is between individual responsibility and the duty of care of organisers when individuals undertake inherently risky activities.

Summary

This case exemplifies the approach and strength of our International & Travel Claims team in navigating complex cross-border liability claims. Our ethos on all claims is meticulous investigation from day one, our extensive global network of offices, linked firms, and experts network allows the team to have 'feet on the ground' to investigate matters, whether they occur in the Arctic Circle or a Caribbean beach. This reach enabled us to preserve witnesses and evidence to prepare a complete and thorough defence. With our strategy acting for McLaren, we successfully dismantled a £20 million claim through meticulous case preparation, strategic expert instruction, and compelling advocacy. The judgment not only vindicates our client and its suppliers but also reinforces the importance of credible evidence and local standards in cross-border cases. The team is proud to have delivered this result for our client, McLaren, we showed that our client and its suppliers provided services to their customers that took customer care and safety to levels above the local standards.

Clyde & Co are specialists in dealing with international and cross-border claims, and we closely monitor developments around this topic. For more on this subject, you can read all of our previous articles here, and if you have any questions about this topic you can contact Craig Evans, Thomas Byrne or any of our Cross-Border Catastrophic Injury team.