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?
This blog by Philip Mead forms part of a series on the aftermath of the collapse of the package holiday provider Thomas Cook. A previous blog covers the rights of injured claimants to pursue a remedy where a purchase was made with a credit card. Philip assesses other possible avenues against alternative defendants. Continue reading Thomas Cook mini-series – (2) Alternative avenues for claimants
In Cole and Others v IVI Madrid SL and Zurich Insurance Plc (Unreported) QBD, 24 September 2019, the court decided to refer to the CJEU the question of whether it was a requirement of art. 13(3) that, for an injured person to make a parasitic claim against the insured, the claim against the insured had to involve “a matter relating to insurance”.
The law in this important area has been in a state of flux since the parties to the litigation in Hoteles Pinero Canarias SL v Keefe  EWCA Civ 598 compromised their dispute after the Supreme Court had referred the issue to the CJEU (Case C-491/17) but before the CJEU was able to give a response. The outcome of these proceedings may therefore prove highly significant for cross-border personal injuries practitioners. Continue reading Keefe question to go back to CJEU
This blog post is by Spencer Turner of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
In Lackey v Mallorca Mega Resorts and Anor  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:
- A party making an application to contest the jurisdiction later than 14 days post-acknowledgment of service must apply for relief from sanctions.
- 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 ( EWCA Civ 598) in permitting the joinder of a foreign hotel to a direct claim against its insurer without re-referring those questions.
- 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
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)).
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
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