The 149th Practice Direction Update will see some significant changes being made to the CPR 6BPD service gateways with effect from 1 October 2022. The key new provisions (and what they mean in practical terms) are outlined in this blog post.
Read moreVictory for clinic in cross-border clinical negligence jurisdiction battle
In this blog post, John-Paul Swoboda considers the recent decision in Pal v Damen & Anor [2022] EWHC 4697 (QB). This was a cross-border clinical negligence battle following hot on the heels of Clarke v Kalecinski & Ors [2022] EWHC 488 (QB) (which we considered here). In May 2016 the Claimant, Lisa Pal, underwent elective…
Read moreCan you strike out without submitting to the jurisdiction?
We know from cases like PJSC Bank “Finance And Credit” & Anor v Valentynovich & Ors [2021] EWHC 2522 (Ch) at [67] and Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm) at [60] that defendants have been allowed to issue conjoined applications disputing the court’s jurisdiction while simultaneously applying for strike-out or summary judgment without this…
Read moreDefendant’s demand for service was not a submission to the jurisdiction
Next week, we will write about a recent decision on strike out and submission to the court’s jurisdiction. The key practice point is that it is vital for defendants to be crystal clear if they wish to keep jurisdiction in dispute. That is also borne out by the recent decision in Hand Held Products, Inc…
Read moreThe Montreal Convention and the “fifth jurisdiction”
In Akulinina and Kondrashova -v- Ifly S.A. the High Court considered, for the first time, the jurisdiction provisions in Article 33(2) of the Montreal Convention. These provisions are often referred to as providing the Convention’s “fifth jurisdiction” (being an additional basis of jurisdiction beyond the four identified in Article 33(1)). Spencer Turner considers the important…
Read moreOdenbreit rule covers subrogated claims
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 moreDon’t hold out hope for future UK Lugano accession
It is old news that the UK’s bid to join the Lugano Convention has stalled and been kicked into the political long grass. We previously blogged about the reasons given by the EU Commission for opposing UK Lugano Convention membership. Specifically: For the European Union, the Lugano Convention is a flanking measure of the internal…
Read moreDefault judgments and invalid service – CPR Part 11 or Part 13?
We previously blogged about the options available to a foreign defendant who wishes to challenge a default judgment entered against them. Where the defendant accepts that they were validly served but wishes to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, they may choose to proceed purely under CPR Part 11 without combining this with an alternative application to…
Read more