Today we have another “historical interest” case to be filed away with last week’s CJEU ruling on parasitic claims against policyholders. Hill v Generali Zrt [2021] EWHC 3381 (QB) concerned an English motorist who was involved in an accident with a car in Germany. The other car was insured by the Defendant. This was a…
Read moreCJEU: Keefe was wrong
The CJEU has today handed down judgment in Case C-708/20, BT. We blogged on the background to this judgment here. The CJEU held that an injured party bringing a direct claim in the injured party’s domicile against an insurer cannot use article 13(3) of Brussels I (Recast) to establish jurisdiction against the insured in the…
Read moreCJEU to rule on Keefe question
The CJEU is coming to town with an early Xmas present: I am of course talking about the much anticipated ruling on the so-called “Keefe question” as referred by DJ Hennessy at the last possible moment in Tattersall v Seguros Catalana Occidente SA and Basque (Unreported) Birkenhead County Court, 31 December 2020. The question concerns whether…
Read moreRecent guidance on “good arguable case” test in jurisdiction challenges
In Generali Italia SPA & Ors v Pelagic Fisheries Corporation & Anor [2020] EWHC 1228 (Comm), Foxton J considered proceedings brought by insurers for declarations that they were not liable to their insureds under certain policies of insurance. The insureds challenged the English court’s jurisdiction on the basis that they had already brought their own…
Read moreSupreme Court rules on “weaker party” in cross-border insurance claims
Although the Supreme Court’s rulings on vicarious liability and surrogacy costs may have stolen the limelight yesterday, eagle-eyed readers will have spotted the important jurisdiction decision in Aspen Underwriting Ltd & Ors v Credit Europe Bank NV [2020] UKSC 11. The Supreme Court, in overruling the Court of Appeal, made important comments on identification of…
Read moreVedanta applied in Nigerian oil spill case
There are some interesting points in the recent decision of Stuart-Smith J in Jalla & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Ors [2020] EWHC 459 (TCC). This is a claim relating to an oil spill in 2011 on behalf of a very large number of individuals (in excess of 27,500) who live by or…
Read more“Territorial scope” clauses and Odenbreit: new High Court ruling
In this blog post, Spencer Turner considers the recent decision of Andrews J in Hutchinson v Mapfre España Compañia de Seguros Y Reaseguros SA and another [2020] EWHC 178 (QB). The case involved a number of important issues for cross-border practitioners: The extent to which the consumer contract provisions of Brussels I (Recast) depend on…
Read moreJurisdiction – what next?
The “Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community” has been given effect in the UK by the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. The Withdrawal Agreement is being voted on by the European Parliament today. It must also…
Read moreDoes art. 4(1) of Brussels I (Recast) confer a right enforceable by an anti-suit injunction?
In this blog post, Elizabeth Boulden of 12 King’s Bench Walk looks at the recent case of Gray v Hurley [2019] 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…
Read moreThomas Cook mini-series – (2) Alternative avenues for claimants
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.
Read more