This blog post is by Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Claims in matters relating to insurance: does an exclusive jurisdiction clause between the insurer and the policyholder bind a third party bringing a direct right of action against the insurer? No, held the Court of Justice of the European Union in Case C-368/16, Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited (Judgment of the Eighth Chamber, 13 July 2017). Continue reading “Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited Case C-368/16 – jurisdiction clauses, third party actions against insurers”
This blog post is by James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The issue in this case was the applicability of the QOCS provisions contained in CPR Part 44 to claims against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (“MIB”) pursuant to reg. 13 of the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations 2003 arising out of accidents abroad. The Court of Appeal’s decision on this issue and the reasoning employed have significant implications for the viability and impact of claims against compensatory bodies at home and abroad. Continue reading “Howe v MIB (No. 2)  EWCA Civ 932 – QOCS, MIB”
In a highly significant move, the MOJ has announced that the CPRC will be asked to bring forward proposals for fixed recoverable costs in holiday sickness claims. The move is described as being in direct response to the rise in the number of ‘bogus’ gastric illness claims. It remains to be seen whether the proposed changes will involve a bespoke system for gastric illness claims or whether they will apply to all cases involving low-value personal injuries suffered abroad.
The announcement is available here.
The European Commission has published a short position paper on Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters for the purposes of the art. 50 negotiations, which is available here.
The paper calls for preservation of the status quo under EU law in respect of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of proceedings pending on the date of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU and in respect of choices of forum and law made prior to that date. The continuing scope and effect of key provisions after that date (i.e. Rome I and II and Brussels I and II) is left open.