In an informative and timely piece linked below, Carlos Villacorta Salís of BCV Lex – who provided another post earlier this week on jurisdiction issues arising out of the case of Williams v Mapfre, available here – considers in detail the procedure by which victims of the recent terrorist attacks in Spain may be entitled to seek compensation from the state for their injuries:
It should be noted that the view expressed below has been indirectly confirmed by the recent CJEU decision in Case C-368/16, Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited (Judgment of the Eighth Chamber, 13 July 2017), discussed in detail in a post by Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk here.
Certain insurance companies show a distinct lack of enthusiasm when it comes to legislation intended to protect consumers from the type of abuse that the larger companies can have a “natural” inclination to perpetrate. One of the tools they may use occasionally could be called legal subterfuge, perpetrated with the intention of evading the consequences of legal provisions set in place to benefit the weaker contracting party.
An example of this can be seen in civil liability insurance policies for hotel establishments in which, typically, some companies have the practice of including clauses on exclusion from cover in relation to judicial claims brought abroad as part of the terms and conditions. In other words, under the guise of a cover limitation clause, they in fact introduce a clause that limits geographical jurisdiction of the courts. In doing so, consumers are prevented from bringing a claim before the Court where they are domiciled, even though this is in principle guaranteed under EU law.
Such a ruling was issued, we say wrongly, by a Judge hearing the case of Williams vs. Mapfre at Chester County Court (United Kingdom). Let us see how this came about. Continue reading Guest Post – Williams vs Mapfre: The justice system of England and Wales slips up badly
This article is by David Green of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The Brexit Department’s two position statements issued last week, on Enforcement and Dispute Resolution and Civil Judicial Cooperation, show welcome progress by the UK government on the conflict of laws issues raised by Brexit. However, many Brexit-watchers will be disappointed that they do not go further than acknowledging broad areas of difficulty and setting out some very abstract possibilities for their resolution. Continue reading Comment: Brexit Department’s Position Statements on Enforcement and Dispute Resolution and Civil Judicial Cooperation