Rome I, Rome II, Service out of Jurisdiction

Brownlie back in the High Court: Claimant allowed to serve on substitute defendant

Leave a comment

Regular readers of this blog will recall our article on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie [2017] UKSC 80 (here).

In an order drawn up in July 2018, the Supreme Court directed that all consequential matters should be remitted to the High Court and that the Claimant had permission to issue certain applications. On 17 August 2018, the claimant duly issued three applications:

  • For the correction or substitution of FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC (“LLC”, an Egyptian company) in place of the existing Defendant, Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated (“Holdings”, a Canadian company).
  • For permission to amend the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim.
  • For permission to serve the Claim Form and Amended Particulars of Claim out of the jurisdiction on LLC in Egypt.

All three applications were recently granted by Nicol J in Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings Inc [2019] EWHC 2533 (QB). The lengthy decision contains some essential points for cross-border personal injuries practitioners. It deals with:

  • Limitation and the doctrine of “relation back” in claims under Rome I and Rome II.
  • The “presumption of equivalence” of foreign law with English law where no foreign law has been pleaded.
  • Application of the majority of the Supreme Court’s (obiter) approach to “damage” in the context of CPR 6BPD 3.1(9)(a) (the tort gateway).
  • Guidance on the approach to determining the forum conveniens post-Vedanta Resources plc v Lungowe [2019] UKSC 20

Nina Ross and James Beeton consider the decision in this blog. Continue reading Brownlie back in the High Court: Claimant allowed to serve on substitute defendant →

Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction, Package Travel, Service out of Jurisdiction

Thomas Cook mini-series – (2) Alternative avenues for claimants

3 Comments

This blog by Philip Mead forms part of a series on the aftermath of the collapse of the package holiday provider Thomas Cook. A previous blog covers the rights of injured claimants to pursue a remedy where a purchase was made with a credit card. Philip assesses other possible avenues against alternative defendants. Continue reading Thomas Cook mini-series – (2) Alternative avenues for claimants →

Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction

Keefe question to go back to CJEU

1 Comment

In Cole and Others v IVI Madrid SL and Zurich Insurance Plc (Unreported) QBD, 24 September 2019, the court decided to refer to the CJEU the question of whether it was a requirement of art. 13(3) that, for an injured person to make a parasitic claim against the insured, the claim against the insured had to involve “a matter relating to insurance”.

The law in this important area has been in a state of flux since the parties to the litigation in Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL v Keefe [2015] EWCA Civ 598 compromised their dispute after the Supreme Court had referred the issue to the CJEU (Case C-491/17) but before the CJEU was able to give a response. The outcome of these proceedings may therefore prove highly significant for cross-border personal injuries practitioners. Continue reading Keefe question to go back to CJEU →

Comparative Law

The English Bar: reflections from Ljubljana

Leave a comment

This blog post is by Domen Turšič, who recently visited 12 KBW as a Pegasus Scholar. Domen studied law at the Universities of Ljubljana and Cambridge and is about to start a PhD on the circumstances precluding wrongfulness in international investment arbitration. In this blog, he reflects on some of the differences of approach between the legal systems in Slovenia and in England and Wales. Continue reading The English Bar: reflections from Ljubljana →

Montreal Convention

Slips, trips, and the Montreal Convention – what’s the position?

Leave a comment

This blog post is by Max Archer and James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

In Labbadia v Alitalia (Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A) [2019] EWHC 2103, Margaret Obi, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, ruled on whether a slipping incident that took place as the Claimant disembarked from the Defendant’s flight was an ‘accident’ within the meaning of art. 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999.

The case provides a useful starting point for analysis of the particular issues associated with slipping and tripping cases under the Convention. These issues are considered in this blog post. Continue reading Slips, trips, and the Montreal Convention – what’s the position? →