Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd v Casey [2017] NSWCA 32 – Montreal Convention, Psychiatric Injury

 

In this blog post, Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent judgment of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales in Pel-Air Aviation Pty v Casey, a case that has important ramifications for cases involving a psychiatric injury brought under the Montreal Convention. Max previously considered in detail the issues that arise in claims in this area in a previous blog post here. Continue reading Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd v Casey [2017] NSWCA 32 – Montreal Convention, Psychiatric Injury

Microsoft Mobile Oy (Ltd) v Sony Europe Ltd and others [2017] EWHC 374 (Ch) – Service out of the Jurisdiction

This blog post is by Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk. The case concerned the Defendants’ applications to stay the Claimant’s claims or set aside the Claimant’s claims on the basis that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear them. The judgment contains a useful summary of the tests to be applied and applicable principles in the case law when seeking to challenge jurisdiction. Continue reading Microsoft Mobile Oy (Ltd) v Sony Europe Ltd and others [2017] EWHC 374 (Ch) – Service out of the Jurisdiction

Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL – Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction, Insurers

On Tuesday 7 March 2017, the Supreme Court heard submissions in this important case concerning jurisdiction under the Judgments Regulation. Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk appeared for the Appellant (led before the Supreme Court by James Collins QC). This blog summarises the submissions heard by the court. Continue reading Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL – Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction, Insurers

AMT Futures Limited v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Gunter Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH [2017] UKSC 13 – Judgments Regulation, art. 5(3)

In this blog post, Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent Supreme Court judgment on the application of Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“the Judgments Regulation”), Article 5(3) in respect of a dispute which at its heart concerned the giving of bad investment advice in relation to the trade in derivatives, and the tort of inducing a breach of contract. The judgment provides useful clarity in relation to the underlying principles which apply when considering the Article 5(3) tort gateway. Continue reading AMT Futures Limited v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Gunter Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH [2017] UKSC 13 – Judgments Regulation, art. 5(3)

Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL to be heard by Supreme Court

Philip Mead, a member of 12KBW’s International and Travel team, appears in the Supreme Court tomorrow, in an important case about cross-border tort and insurance jurisdictional disputes. This blog will feature a write-up of the submissions heard by the court after the hearing.

Philip appears for the appellant, a Spanish hotel company, in Keefe v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL. The English Claimant – the respondent in this appeal – was allegedly injured in a serious accident at the hotel in 2006. As the accident occurred before January 2009, the Rome II Regulation did not apply.

The Claimant had a direct right of action against the appellant’s insurance company under Spanish law, and brought this claim in the English courts under the Judgments Regulation, following the decision of the CJEU in Odenbreit.

The insurance company – the first Defendant in the action – admitted liability to compensate, but averred that there was a limit on their liability which would fall far short of the Claimant’s estimate of his damages.

The Claimant sought permission to join the appellant hotel company as a second defendant, relying on Regulation 11(3) of the Judgments Regulation, which provides that:

‘If the law governing such direct actions provides that the policyholder or the insured may be joined as a party to the action, the same court shall have jurisdiction over them.’

The application was granted by Master Cook, and upheld on appeal by HHJ Higgins in the High Court, and then by the Court of Appeal.

Philip Mead therefore appears for the hotel in the Supreme Court, in an appeal which will provide much-needed clarity to the way in which jurisdictional provisions relating to insurance and tort overlap and interact.

Submissions in the case will be streamed live on the Supreme Court’s website.

MacInnes v Gross [2017] EWHC 127 (QB) – Costs, Exchange Rates

This blog post is by William Audland QC and James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

This case involved a failed claim in contract or unjust enrichment by C against D1, with a consequential award of costs in D1’s favour. Issues arose as to both the basis of the costs award and the level of interest recoverable. Having found that costs would be awarded on the standard basis, Coulson J went on to consider an argument advanced by D1 that it was entitled to an order for recovery of any additional sums to be assessed ‘to reflect any currency loss caused by the decline in the exchange rate between the Pound and the Euro since any payments [of costs] were made’.

This claim was made on the basis of the recent decision in Elkamet Kunststofftechnik GmbH v Saint-Gobain Glass France SA [2016] EWHC 3421 (Pat) – considered in a separate blog post here. In that case, Arnold J had found that there was a ‘powerful analogy’ between an award of interest on costs and an award of exchange rate losses on costs. He had awarded the claimant an additional sum – some £20,000 – representing its exchange rate loss in converting euros into pounds in order to pay its solicitors’ bills. Continue reading MacInnes v Gross [2017] EWHC 127 (QB) – Costs, Exchange Rates

AAA and others v Unilever Plc and Unilever Tea Kenya Ltd [2017] EWHC 371 (QB); international personal injury & justiciability

In this post, Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the third decision in a series of African cases where complex group action personal injury claims have been sought to be litigated in the English Courts, following Lungowe v Vedanta Resources Plc [2016] EWHC 975 (TCC) (heard by Coulson J) and Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC) (heard by Fraser J). Continue reading AAA and others v Unilever Plc and Unilever Tea Kenya Ltd [2017] EWHC 371 (QB); international personal injury & justiciability