All posts by James Beeton

Latest news in X v Kuoni Travel Ltd (ABTA intervening) [2019] UKSC 37: interim judgment handed down by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has today handed down an interim judgment in X v Kuoni Travel Ltd (ABTA intervening).

The effect of the judgment is to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) requesting clarification of principles of EU law.

The response of the CJEU will determine the approach that is appropriate to package travel cases brought under the 1992 Regulations concerning criminal acts by employees of hotels and other suppliers of holiday services.

William Audland QC, Nina Ross and Achas Burin of 12 King’s Bench Walk appear in the case on behalf of the Respondent upon instructions from Gary Tweddle at MB Law.

The interim judgment can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0102-judgment.pdf

The Supreme Court press release can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0102-press-summary.pdf Continue reading Latest news in X v Kuoni Travel Ltd (ABTA intervening) [2019] UKSC 37: interim judgment handed down by Supreme Court

No fault personal injuries compensation – the New Zealand way

This blog post is by David Green, a New Zealand qualified barrister and solicitor who recently visited 12 KBW for two weeks as a Pegasus Scholar.

In 2017, Lord Sumption offered some bold views to the Personal Injuries Bar Association in a speech provocatively entitled “Abolishing Personal Injuries Law – A Project”.  His proposed replacement was a system of compulsory no fault compensation, which incidentally is exactly the approach taken to personal injuries in New Zealand. This blog post sets out some reflections on the New Zealand approach in comparison to that in England and Wales. Continue reading No fault personal injuries compensation – the New Zealand way

Jurisdiction and foreign hotels post-Keefe

This blog post is by Spencer Turner of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

In Lackey v Mallorca Mega Resorts and Anor [2019] EWHC 1028 (QB), Master Davison held that the Claimant, who had been paralysed as a result of an accident at a holiday resort, could sue a Spanish hotel and its insurer in England.

There are three points of interest arising from this case:

  1. A party making an application to contest the jurisdiction later than 14 days post-acknowledgment of service must apply for relief from sanctions.
  2. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision to refer three questions to the CJEU in Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL v Keefe (Case C-491/17), this case suggests that the lower courts may be inclined to follow the Court of Appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 598) in permitting the joinder of a foreign hotel to a direct claim against its insurer without re-referring those questions.
  3. However, Master Davison’s willingness to follow Keefe may also be explained by the availability of an alternative route to jurisdiction on the basis that the claimant was also suing as a “consumer” for the purposes of arts. 17 and 18 of the Recast Brussels Regulation. To qualify as a consumer, it was not necessary for the Claimant to be the member of her travelling party who had actually made the booking.

Continue reading Jurisdiction and foreign hotels post-Keefe

Interim Payments and Foreign Law

In this blog post, Spencer Turner of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent decision of Folkes (by his litigation friend Patrick Folkes) and Others v Generali Assurances [2019] EWHC 801 (QB). Nichol J held that interim payments in foreign accident claims are governed by English procedural rules: however, the foreign law remains relevant to the substantive assessment of the quantum of the payment. The decision is available here. Continue reading Interim Payments and Foreign Law

Orders for disclosure contrary to foreign law

Disclosure is matter of the law of the forum. However, where the effect of an order for the disclosure of certain documents will be to place a foreign party in breach of its home law, this can place the English court in an interesting and difficult position. The relevant principles were well summarised earlier this week in a “cut-out-and-keep” passage by the Court of Appeal in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2019] EWCA Civ 449. Continue reading Orders for disclosure contrary to foreign law