In this blog post, Spencer Turner of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent decision of Folkes (by his litigation friend Patrick Folkes) and Others v Generali Assurances [2019] EWHC 801 (QB). Nichol J held that interim payments in foreign accident claims are governed by English procedural rules: however, the foreign law remains relevant to the substantive assessment of the quantum of the payment. The decision is available here. Continue reading Interim Payments and Foreign Law
CPR Brexit Amendments
The most recent iteration of proposed Brexit amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 was laid before Parliament on 8 March 2019 (Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019).
Will they still be relevant in few days’ time? Who knows! In the meantime, for those interested, here are the headlines. Continue reading CPR Brexit Amendments
Orders for disclosure contrary to foreign law
Disclosure is matter of the law of the forum. However, where the effect of an order for the disclosure of certain documents will be to place a foreign party in breach of its home law, this can place the English court in an interesting and difficult position. The relevant principles were well summarised earlier this week in a “cut-out-and-keep” passage by the Court of Appeal in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2019] EWCA Civ 449. Continue reading Orders for disclosure contrary to foreign law
The Montreal Convention and “Accidents”
In the recent case of Prosser v British Airways Plc [2018] EW Misc B13 (CC), DJ Andrew Barcello considered an unusual claim under art. 17 of the Montreal Convention (and one which has generated publicity in the press). In summary, the claimant said that he had suffered personal injuries as a result of being forced to sit at an awkward angle over the course of a long-haul flight by a very large passenger “encroaching” into his seating area.
This blog post sets out the law on “accidents” under the Convention and looks at how this odd case may fit into the liability framework provided by the authorities.
Jersey: Draft Legislation in respect of discount rates and PPOs has been approved
This blog post is by William Audland QC of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Following my earlier posts – for a summary on the discount rates see here – the Draft Damages (Jersey) Law 201 (as amended by Amendment P1.131/2018) to set a statutory discount rate and to create a statutory power to make a PPO was unanimously adopted by the States of Jersey yesterday.
From the date on which the Law comes into force – that date being 7 days after the registration in the Royal Court if sanctioned by the Privy Council – a court, including an appeal court, will apply the new provisions. It is anticipated that the Law will be registered in the Royal Court and therefore be in force by about the end of March. Continue reading Jersey: Draft Legislation in respect of discount rates and PPOs has been approved
Jersey: Update on X Children litigation and draft legislation
This blog is by William Audland QC of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Following my earlier posts there have been two further developments this week.
The first reading of the Draft Damages (Jersey) Law 201 to set a statutory discount rate and to create a statutory power to make a PPO has been postponed from 4 December 2018 to 29 January 2019.
A settlement reached in the X Children case (which was tried this summer) was approved by the Royal Court yesterday: the terms of the settlement involved a lump sum and a PPO in respect of care costs but were otherwise kept confidential. The Solicitor General had intervened in the trial and gave evidence to the court that it had an inherent power to impose a PPO (although, this being a settlement, the parties were able to agree a PPO in any event).
The Draft Withdrawal Agreement – headlines for cross-border practitioners
It will not have escaped our readers’ notice that last week the UK and the EU released the draft text of a withdrawal agreement covering the UK’s exit from the EU. In a nutshell, the key provisions governing applicable law and jurisdiction are as follow.
Article 66 covers applicable law. It provides:
- The Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008) will apply in respect of contracts concluded before the end of the transition period.
- The Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007) will apply in respect of events giving rise to damage, where the events occur before the end of the transition period.
Article 67 covers jurisdiction. It provides (inter alia):
- The Recast Judgments Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012) will apply in respect of legal proceedings “instituted” (presumably this means “issued”) before the end of the transition period.
- The Recast Judgments Regulation will apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in legal proceedings “instituted” before the end of the transition period and to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and court settlements approved or concluded before the end of the transition period.
- These provisions also apply to the special agreement between the EC and Denmark (by article 69(3)).
