In this blog post, Elizabeth Boulden of 12 King’s Bench Walk looks at the recent case of Gray v Hurley  EWCA Civ 2222. This explores the interesting question of whether art. 4(1) of Brussels I (Recast) gives rise to an enforceable right which obliges a court to grant an anti-suit injunction to prevent a party from litigating against an EU-domiciled person in a non-EU Member State.
In summary, Ms Gray appealed against the refusal of an anti-suit injunction to prevent Mr Hurley from bringing proceedings against her in New Zealand. Ms Gray argued that, pursuant to art. 4(1), she had an enforceable right to be sued in the UK, this being the place of her domicile. The court ultimately decided to refer the matter to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling because the meaning and applicability of art. 4(1) were not acte clair. Continue reading Does art. 4(1) of Brussels I (Recast) confer a right enforceable by an anti-suit injunction?
In 2015, GN, a six-year-old child, was travelling on board an aircraft between Mallorca and Vienna. Her father, who was sitting next to her, was served a cup of hot coffee which, when it was placed on the tray table in front him, tipped over onto his right thigh and onto GN’s chest, causing her second-degree burns. It could not be established precisely why the cup of coffee overturned.
The Austrian Supreme Court referred to the CJEU the question of whether or not this constituted an “accident” for the purposes of art. 17 of the Montreal Convention (to which the EU is a signatory). In Case C-532/18 GN v ZU, the CJEU determined that it was. Continue reading CJEU rules on Montreal Convention coffee spillage case
This blog post is by Nick Parkinson, a solicitor at Travlaw LLP.
Nick considers the case of Morris v TUI UK Limited (Unreported) Wrexham County Court, 31 May 2019. This is the first known instance of the courts applying the ‘Bolam test’ (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee  1 WLR 582) in relation to accidents abroad under the Package Travel Regulations. Although it was not decisive in this case, the potential implications are significant. Will Claimant local standards experts have to confirm that a supplier’s practices do not fall within a reasonable body of opinion if the point is taken? This may not be easy, particularly in cases with more “fluid” standards than building regulations or statutory codes of practice. Continue reading The Bolam test in package travel cases
Yesterday, Business Secretary Andrea Leadsom made an oral statement concerning Thomas Cook to the House of Commons.
Noting that Thomas Cook had self-insured in respect of all but the most serious personal injury claims, she announced that, after the imminent general election, the government intended to set up a statutory compensation scheme for those left without redress.
The key features of the scheme described are:
- It will be “a capped fund, sufficient to ensure there is support for those customers facing the most serious hardship as a result of injuries or illness for which UK-based Thomas Cook companies would have been liable”.
- Measures will be developed to ensure the scheme only responds to genuine claims.
- The scheme will not consider “routine claims covering short-term problems”.
The full text of the statement is available here.
In Gulf International Bank BSC v Aldwood  EWHC 1666 (QB), John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) gave some brief practical guidance on the proper approach to expert foreign law evidence in jurisdictional disputes. This arose in the context of a multi-million pound claim based on a personal guarantee signed by the Defendant. Continue reading Expert foreign law evidence in jurisdiction disputes: ask for permission first
In this blog post, Christopher Fleming of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent widely reported decision of Di Falco v Emirates (No 2)  VSC 654 (15 October 2019) (available here) in which the Supreme Court of Victoria found that injuries caused by an airline’s failure to provide a passenger with water when requested did not constitute an “accident” under the Montreal Convention 1999.
The case is of particular interest because of certain significant differences in the Supreme Court’s approach to that of the Court of Appeal and House of Lords in Deep Vein Thrombosis and Air Travel Group Litigation  UKHL 72. This blog suggests that the court reached the right result, but not quite by the right route. Continue reading An unusual Montreal Convention case: failure to provide water to passenger
Regular readers of this blog will recall our article on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie  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  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  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