Category Archives: Jurisdiction

Thomas 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. Continue reading Thomas Cook mini-series – (2) Alternative avenues for claimants

Keefe question to go back to CJEU

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 [2015] 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

Jurisdiction and foreign hotels post-Keefe

This blog post is by Spencer Turner of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

In Lackey v Mallorca Mega Resorts and Anor [2019] 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:

  1. A party making an application to contest the jurisdiction later than 14 days post-acknowledgment of service must apply for relief from sanctions.
  2. 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 ([2015] EWCA Civ 598) in permitting the joinder of a foreign hotel to a direct claim against its insurer without re-referring those questions.
  3. 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

Brexit and the Government White Paper: Are the Civil Judicial Cooperation plans Realistic?

In this blog, which follows on from Philip Mead’s recent post explaining the legal implications the Government’s recent White Paper (Cm 9593), Patrick Vincent suggests that the Lugano Convention has been wrongly worded and wrongly translated – but that even if corrected it will not help the UK achieve post-Brexit civil judicial cooperation with the EU. Continue reading Brexit and the Government White Paper: Are the Civil Judicial Cooperation plans Realistic?

The White Paper on The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Brexit Trifle or Dog’s Dinner?

This blog by Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk describes the approach adopted by the Government to negotiations with the EU as set out in the White Paper (Cm 9593) published on 12 July 2018, with particular reference to international and travel claims involving employment and personal injury. Continue reading The White Paper on The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union: Brexit Trifle or Dog’s Dinner?

AAA & ORS v (1) UNILEVER PLC (2) UNILEVER TEA KENYA LTD (2018) [2018] EWCA Civ 1532: the corporate veil remains a tightly woven garment

This blog is by Lois Aldred of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

The Court of Appeal recently handed down its judgment in AAA & Others v Unilever PLC and Unilever Tea Kenya Limited. This is the latest in a series of Court of Appeal considerations of the extent of corporate liability of parent companies for acts or omissions pertaining to the operations of subsidiaries.

The Claimants were employees of Unilever Tea Kenya Limited (‘UTKL’) who lived and worked on UTKL’s tea plantation in the southern Rift Valley of Kenya.  They claimed against both Unilever and UTKL in tort for failing to protect them from the harm they suffered as a result of inter-tribal violence in the immediate aftermath of the 2007 Kenyan presidential election.  Continue reading AAA & ORS v (1) UNILEVER PLC (2) UNILEVER TEA KENYA LTD (2018) [2018] EWCA Civ 1532: the corporate veil remains a tightly woven garment