In this blog post, Kate Boakes of 12 King’s Bench Walk provides a fresh perspective on the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision in Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie  UKSC 80. The entire judgment, including in particular the Court’s lengthy obiter discussion of the functioning of the CPR’s jurisdictional gateways, is required reading for private international lawyers. Continue reading Service out of the jurisdiction and ‘damage’ – our take on Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated v Brownlie
In this blog post, Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the recent decision of Spring v Ministry of Defence & Evangelisches Krankenhaus Bielefeld gGmbH  EWHC 3012 (QB). Master Yoxall considered issues of jurisdiction and joinder out of time for limitation purposes under the Recast Brussels Regulation. Continue reading Jurisdiction, Joinder and Limitation: Spring v Ministry of Defence & Anor
This blog is by John-Paul Swoboda of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Chandler v Cape  EWCA Civ 525 was described in the Economist as “A little-noticed court case with big implications”. That was because it was the first time a parent company had successfully been sued for, as the Economist put it, the sins of their subsidiary. The prediction that there would be big implications appears, with the Lungowe case, to be coming to pass. The Lungowe case concerns 1,800 claimants, all of them Zambians alleging personal injury and property damage in Zambia whilst in the employment of a Zambian company (‘KCM’) due to an alleged toxic discharge from KCM’s mine into the water table. In other words, the Lungowe case concerns the export of huge group litigation, from a country with little access to justice, to the English Courts. The export of this group litigation was made possible, in this author’s opinion, by the Court of Appeal’s decision in Chandler and the European Court of Justice’s decision in Owusu v Jackson (Case C-281/02)  QB 801 which allows claimants to anchor jurisdiction in English courts where one of the proposed defendants is domiciled in England. In this case the first defendant or ‘Vedanta’ was the anchoring defendant and the parent company of KCM. Continue reading Lungowe & Ors v Vedanta Resources Plc v Konkola Copper Mines Plc  EWCA Civ 1528: Anchoring defendants, and suing the parent for the sins of their subsidiaries
It should be noted that the view expressed below has been indirectly confirmed by the recent CJEU decision in Case C-368/16, Assens Havn v Navigators Management (UK) Limited (Judgment of the Eighth Chamber, 13 July 2017), discussed in detail in a post by Philip Mead of 12 King’s Bench Walk here.
Certain insurance companies show a distinct lack of enthusiasm when it comes to legislation intended to protect consumers from the type of abuse that the larger companies can have a “natural” inclination to perpetrate. One of the tools they may use occasionally could be called legal subterfuge, perpetrated with the intention of evading the consequences of legal provisions set in place to benefit the weaker contracting party.
An example of this can be seen in civil liability insurance policies for hotel establishments in which, typically, some companies have the practice of including clauses on exclusion from cover in relation to judicial claims brought abroad as part of the terms and conditions. In other words, under the guise of a cover limitation clause, they in fact introduce a clause that limits geographical jurisdiction of the courts. In doing so, consumers are prevented from bringing a claim before the Court where they are domiciled, even though this is in principle guaranteed under EU law.
Such a ruling was issued, we say wrongly, by a Judge hearing the case of Williams vs. Mapfre at Chester County Court (United Kingdom). Let us see how this came about. Continue reading Guest Post – Williams vs Mapfre: The justice system of England and Wales slips up badly
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
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck… In this blog post, Patrick Vincent of 12 King’s Bench Walk looks at a recent attempt to escape enforcement of a New York judgment in England on various grounds.
The Claimant obtained two judgments for a total of US$587m in the courts of New York. It did so pursuant to Rule 3218 of the New York Civil Practice Law & Rules (“CPLR”). That rule enables a claimant to enter judgment against a defendant who has “confessed to judgment” by affidavit (“a judgment by confession”), without an action being brought or notice being given. The Defendant had signed such affidavits in the course of negotiating its liabilities to the Claimant.
The English court hearing in front of Teare J determined (i) the Defendant’s challenge to jurisdiction (ii) the Claimant’s application for summary judgment in its action upon one of the New York judgments and (iii) the Defendant’s application for any judgment to be stayed. The applications were heard together by consent. Continue reading MIDTOWN ACQUISITIONS LP V ESSAR GLOBAL FUND LTD  EWHC 519 – ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS
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