Two recent County Court decisions (Mead v British Airways Plc (Unreported) Manchester County Court, 15 January 2018 and McKendry v British Airways Plc (Unreported) Liverpool County Court, 7 June 2018) have come to identical conclusions that personal injury claims under the Montreal Convention do not engage the EL/PL Pre-action Protocol. The result is that these claims were deemed to fall outside the fixed costs provisions of CPR Part 45.
In summary, DJ Moss and DJ Baldwin (the latter sitting as a Regional Costs Judge) considered that Convention claims were ‘sui generis’ such that they did not arise out of ‘a breach of a statutory or common law duty of care’ for the purposes of the Protocol threshold criteria in para. 1.1(18).
DJ Baldwin also noted that the new Package Travel Protocol (considered in detail here) specifically excluded Athens and Montreal Convention claims, which supported the proposition that such claims were properly excluded from the low value fixed costs regime.
Copies of the judgments can be found on Gordon Exall’s Civil Litigation Brief blog.
An interesting aspect of Kimathi and Others v Foreign & Commonwealth Office  EWHC 2066 (QB) is how thoroughly it confirms that the past is a foreign country. Britain’s past comprises many foreign countries, once part of its Empire. The Kimathi litigation (also known as the ‘Mau Mau litigation’, after the Mau Mau rebellion that was instrumental in Kenya’s independence movement) has come probably at the only time it could come in these postcolonial days, but it has come too late to be suitable for the forensic process that is civil litigation.
Members of 12 King’s Bench Walk’s International & Travel team have been instructed at various points throughout the course of this litigation by the Claimants, the FCO, and Intervening Parties. This post considers the implications of Stewart J’s first judgment on the merits and assesses the suitability of the civil litigation process for determination of the issues raised. Continue reading First Judgment on the Merits in the Kenya Emergency Group Litigation (TC34)
In this blog, James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the decision in Committeri v Club Mediterranée SA  EWCA Civ 1889, which was handed down yesterday. The case involved an appeal against the decision of Dingemans J ( EWHC 1510 (QB) – considered in an earlier blog post here).
It provides guidance on (i) the characterisation of claims as contractual or non-contractual for the purposes of Rome I and Rome II and (ii) the circumstances in which it is acceptable to challenge the agreed evidence of foreign law experts. Continue reading Committeri v Club Mediterranée SA and Anor  EWCA Civ 1889 – Package Travel, Rome I and II
In this blog, David Green of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recently-reported application for permission to hearing of Lawrence v NCL (Bahamas) Ltd, the Norwegian Jade  EWCA Civ 2222. The case deals with a novel point of construction of the Athens Convention 1974, concerning the liability of a sea carrier for injuries sustained when their passenger is in a tender vessel being taken from ship to shore. Continue reading The Norwegian Jade – Athens Convention, “Carriage”
In this blog, which follows on from Philip Mead’s recent post explaining the legal implications the Government’s recent White Paper (Cm 9593), Patrick Vincent suggests that the Lugano Convention has been wrongly worded and wrongly translated – but that even if corrected it will not help the UK achieve post-Brexit civil judicial cooperation with the EU. Continue reading Brexit and the Government White Paper: Are the Civil Judicial Cooperation plans Realistic?
This blog by Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk describes the approach adopted by the Government to negotiations with the EU as set out in the White Paper (Cm 9593) published on 12 July 2018, with particular reference to international and travel claims involving employment and personal injury. Continue reading The White Paper on The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Brexit Trifle or Dog’s Dinner?
This blog is by Lois Aldred of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The Court of Appeal recently handed down its judgment in AAA & Others v Unilever PLC and Unilever Tea Kenya Limited. This is the latest in a series of Court of Appeal considerations of the extent of corporate liability of parent companies for acts or omissions pertaining to the operations of subsidiaries.
The Claimants were employees of Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (‘UTKL’) who lived and worked on UTKL’s tea plantation in the southern Rift Valley of Kenya. They claimed against both Unilever and UTKL in tort for failing to protect them from the harm they suffered as a result of inter-tribal violence in the immediate aftermath of the 2007 Kenyan presidential election. Continue reading AAA & ORS v (1) UNILEVER PLC (2) UNILEVER TEA KENYA LTD (2018)  EWCA Civ 1532: the corporate veil remains a tightly woven garment