Category Archives: Judgments Regulation

The Draft Withdrawal Agreement – headlines for cross-border practitioners

It will not have escaped our readers’ notice that last week the UK and the EU released the draft text of a withdrawal agreement covering the UK’s exit from the EU. In a nutshell, the key provisions governing applicable law and jurisdiction are as follow.

Article 66 covers applicable law. It provides:

  • The Rome I Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008) will apply in respect of contracts concluded before the end of the transition period.
  • The Rome II Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007) will apply in respect of events giving rise to damage, where the events occur before the end of the transition period.

Article 67 covers jurisdiction. It provides (inter alia):

  • The Recast Judgments Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012) will apply in respect of legal proceedings “instituted” (presumably this means “issued”) before the end of the transition period.
  • The Recast Judgments Regulation will apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in legal proceedings “instituted” before the end of the transition period and to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and court settlements approved or concluded before the end of the transition period.
  • These provisions also apply to the special agreement between the EC and Denmark (by article 69(3)).

Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited Case C-368/16 – jurisdiction clauses, third party actions against insurers

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

Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL – Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction, Insurers

On Tuesday 7 March 2017, the Supreme Court heard submissions in this important case concerning jurisdiction under the Judgments Regulation. Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk appeared for the Appellant (led before the Supreme Court by James Collins QC). This blog summarises the submissions heard by the court. Continue reading Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL – Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction, Insurers

AMT Futures Limited v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Gunter Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH [2017] UKSC 13 – Judgments Regulation, art. 5(3)

In this blog post, Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent Supreme Court judgment on the application of Council Regulation 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (“the Judgments Regulation”), Article 5(3) in respect of a dispute which at its heart concerned the giving of bad investment advice in relation to the trade in derivatives, and the tort of inducing a breach of contract. The judgment provides useful clarity in relation to the underlying principles which apply when considering the Article 5(3) tort gateway. Continue reading AMT Futures Limited v Marzillier, Dr Meier & Dr Gunter Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH [2017] UKSC 13 – Judgments Regulation, art. 5(3)

Keefe v Hoteles Piñero Canarias SL to be heard by Supreme Court

Philip Mead, a member of 12KBW’s International and Travel team, appears in the Supreme Court tomorrow, in an important case about cross-border tort and insurance jurisdictional disputes. This blog will feature a write-up of the submissions heard by the court after the hearing.

Philip appears for the appellant, a Spanish hotel company, in Keefe v Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL. The English Claimant – the respondent in this appeal – was allegedly injured in a serious accident at the hotel in 2006. As the accident occurred before January 2009, the Rome II Regulation did not apply.

The Claimant had a direct right of action against the appellant’s insurance company under Spanish law, and brought this claim in the English courts under the Judgments Regulation, following the decision of the CJEU in Odenbreit.

The insurance company – the first Defendant in the action – admitted liability to compensate, but averred that there was a limit on their liability which would fall far short of the Claimant’s estimate of his damages.

The Claimant sought permission to join the appellant hotel company as a second defendant, relying on Regulation 11(3) of the Judgments Regulation, which provides that:

‘If the law governing such direct actions provides that the policyholder or the insured may be joined as a party to the action, the same court shall have jurisdiction over them.’

The application was granted by Master Cook, and upheld on appeal by HHJ Higgins in the High Court, and then by the Court of Appeal.

Philip Mead therefore appears for the hotel in the Supreme Court, in an appeal which will provide much-needed clarity to the way in which jurisdictional provisions relating to insurance and tort overlap and interact.

Submissions in the case will be streamed live on the Supreme Court’s website.

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

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