His Royal Highness Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Lucky Alame v Royal Dutch Shell Plc [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC); Jurisdiction and international environmental group actions

This post is by Aliyah Akram of 12 King’s Bench Walk. 

The case involved 42,500 residents of the Niger Delta, from two different communities, who sought to bring a claim in the High Court for damages arising from environmental pollution caused by, they alleged, oil spills from the Defendants’ pipelines.

The claim was brought against two defendants.  Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria (“SPDC”), the Shell company responsible for the oil operations and Royal Dutch Shell (“RDS”) its ultimate parent company.   Continue reading “His Royal Highness Okpabi v Royal Dutch Shell Plc, Lucky Alame v Royal Dutch Shell Plc [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC); Jurisdiction and international environmental group actions”

Gunn & others v Diaz & others [2017] EWHC 157 (QB) – service out of the jurisdiction

This blog is by Patrick Vincent of 12 King’s Bench Walk

This was a decision of Mrs Justice Andrews in a catastrophic personal injury claim.The point decided was whether to accede to one of the Defendants’ applications to set aside an order permitting service upon it out of the jurisdiction.

Superficially the point is a short one, but the detailed judgment deals with several important issues of law and procedure relevant to international claims, and particularly international person injury claims, including:-

  • The duties on a party making a without notice application to serve out of the jurisdiction, or to extend time for service.
  • The availability of the jurisdictional “gateways” set out in the Practice Direction 6BPD3.
  • The proper characterisation of claims brought against foreign insurers.

Continue reading “Gunn & others v Diaz & others [2017] EWHC 157 (QB) – service out of the jurisdiction”

PHP v Tobacco Carib Sarl v BAT Caribbean SA [2016] EWHC 3377 (Comm): Brussels Recast & third party claims

This blog is by Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

 

The claimant in this case was French company engaged in importing tobacco products to Guadeloupe and Martinique. The defendant was Panamanian company within the wider BAT corporate group.

The claimant had a five-year distribution agreement with the defendant. The agreement provided for English law and exclusive jurisdiction. This agreement came to an end without any further agreement to renew it.

The claimant commenced English proceedings in pursuit of what it claimed was a ‘margin pay-out’ of €6.5 million. It was claimed that it was entitled to this pay-out pursuant to the agreement as a result of the failure to renew. The defendant denied any entitlement to a pay-out and counterclaimed for numerous unpaid invoices and for €8.5 million of VAT recovered from the French VAT authorities. The Defendant argued that it was to be paid these VAT monies pursuant to an oral agreement.

The claimant denied these allegations and alleged that there was no enforceable agreement. The claimant argued that the agreement in respect of the VAT monies did not lie with itself but with the other group companies (the proposed third and fourth defendants). These companies had been subcontracted to carry out distribution in the relevant territories and had recovered the VAT monies themselves. Continue reading “PHP v Tobacco Carib Sarl v BAT Caribbean SA [2016] EWHC 3377 (Comm): Brussels Recast & third party claims”

Pickard v Marshall, the MIB and others [2017] EWCA Civ 17 – Rome II and manifestly closer connections

The blog is by David Green of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

Cranston J refused permission to appeal against Dingemans J’s judgment in Marshall v the MIB, Pickard and others [2015] EWHC 3421 (QB) on an important point of construction of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulations. Continue reading “Pickard v Marshall, the MIB and others [2017] EWCA Civ 17 – Rome II and manifestly closer connections”

KXL (1) NXR (2) MXD (3) v Nicholas Murphy (1) The Society of Missionaries of Africa (“The White Fathers”) (2) [2016] EWHC 3102 (QB) – Applicable law and foreign limitation periods

This case concerned allegations of historic sexual abuse against three claimants who at the time of the alleged abuse were children living in Uganda. The preliminary issue before the court was a matter of applicable law: whether the Ugandan limitation period applied so that the claim was statue barred. Continue reading “KXL (1) NXR (2) MXD (3) v Nicholas Murphy (1) The Society of Missionaries of Africa (“The White Fathers”) (2) [2016] EWHC 3102 (QB) – Applicable law and foreign limitation periods”

Harry Roberts (A Child) (Claimant) v (1) SSAFA (2) MoD (Defendants/Part 20 Claimants) & Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GMBH (Third Party) [2016] EWHC 2744 (QB): Jurisdiction & the Brussels Recast Regulation

This blog is by Oliver Rudd of 12 King’s Bench Walk

The importance of (i) drafting a properly formulated application notice; and (ii) a thorough consideration of all extant contractual documentation and related evidence were starkly highlighted in this case in which the Court held that it did have jurisdiction to entertain Part 20 proceedings following alleged negligent medical treatment in Germany. The Court also gave useful guidance as to the interpretation of art. 8(2) of Brussels Recast (EU 1215/2012). Continue reading “Harry Roberts (A Child) (Claimant) v (1) SSAFA (2) MoD (Defendants/Part 20 Claimants) & Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GMBH (Third Party) [2016] EWHC 2744 (QB): Jurisdiction & the Brussels Recast Regulation”

R (Gina Miller & Dier Dos Santos) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (The Brexit Case)

This article is by John-Paul Swoboda of 12 King’s Bench Walk

This case, concerning whether the Executive is entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under article 50 for the UK to cease to be a member of EU, is one of the most important legal decisions made during my lifetime. The case is of profound importance for two reasons. Firstly, the decision is of huge constitutional importance as it considers the relationship between parliament and the Executive. Secondly, the decision will, in my opinion, have a profound impact on Brexit. Continue reading “R (Gina Miller & Dier Dos Santos) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2016] EWHC 2768 (Admin) (The Brexit Case)”