Category Archives: Rome II

The Draft Withdrawal Agreement – headlines for cross-border practitioners

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)).

Asbestos Exposure and Choice of Law – Docherty Revisited

This blog post is by James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

In May we considered the decision of the Outer House of Scotland’s Court of Session in Docherty v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2018] CSOH 25 in this blog post. The question for the court to consider may be summarised as follows:

‘Where an individual, while working in Scotland, inhales asbestos fibres that cause him injury after he has become resident in England, which law is applicable to determine the admissibility of claims for damages made by his executors and relatives after his death?’

In the Outer House, Lord Tyre had held that the case fell outside the temporal scope of Rome II and the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. The result was that the applicable law depended on the locus delicti (i.e. the place of the wrong) pursuant to the common law. Lord Tyre considered that the locus delicti was the place where the injury developed and not where the negligent act or omission occurred. This meant that English law applied to the claims for damages (with significant consequences for some of the claimants, as discussed in the previous blog).

That decision has now been overturned by the Inner House on appeal ([2018] CSIH 57). The locus delicti is the place of exposure to asbestos – not the place where the eventual injury develops. Continue reading Asbestos Exposure and Choice of Law – Docherty Revisited

Committeri v Club Mediterranée SA and Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1889 – Package Travel, Rome I and II

In this blog, James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk considers the decision in Committeri v Club Mediterranée SA [2018] EWCA Civ 1889, which was handed down yesterday. The case involved an appeal against the decision of Dingemans J ([2016] EWHC 1510 (QB) – considered in an earlier blog post here).

It provides guidance on (i) the characterisation of claims as contractual or non-contractual for the purposes of Rome I and Rome II and (ii) the circumstances in which it is acceptable to challenge the agreed evidence of foreign law experts. Continue reading Committeri v Club Mediterranée SA and Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1889 – Package Travel, Rome I and II

Asbestos Exposure and Choice of Law – The View from Scotland

 

This blog post is by James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

In Docherty v Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2018] CSOH 25, the Outer House of Scotland’s Court of Session considered the following question:

Where a man, while working in Scotland, inhales asbestos fibres that cause him injury after he has become resident in England, which law is applicable to determine the admissibility of claims for damages made by his executors and relatives after his death? Continue reading Asbestos Exposure and Choice of Law – The View from Scotland

Pickard v Marshall, the MIB and others [2017] EWCA Civ 17 – Rome II and manifestly closer connections

The blog is by David Green of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

Cranston J refused permission to appeal against Dingemans J’s judgment in Marshall v the MIB, Pickard and others [2015] EWHC 3421 (QB) on an important point of construction of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulations. Continue reading Pickard v Marshall, the MIB and others [2017] EWCA Civ 17 – Rome II and manifestly closer connections

KXL (1) NXR (2) MXD (3) v Nicholas Murphy (1) The Society of Missionaries of Africa (“The White Fathers”) (2) [2016] EWHC 3102 (QB) – Applicable law and foreign limitation periods

This case concerned allegations of historic sexual abuse against three claimants who at the time of the alleged abuse were children living in Uganda. The preliminary issue before the court was a matter of applicable law: whether the Ugandan limitation period applied so that the claim was statue barred. Continue reading KXL (1) NXR (2) MXD (3) v Nicholas Murphy (1) The Society of Missionaries of Africa (“The White Fathers”) (2) [2016] EWHC 3102 (QB) – Applicable law and foreign limitation periods

Moreno v MIB [2016] UKSC 52 – Applicable law, 4th Motor Insurance Directive, MIB

This case comment is by Patrick Vincent of 12 King’s Bench Walk.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Moreno has cleared up one – but only one – of the difficulties created by the complicated and fragmented way in which the legislature has attempted to implement the requirements of the EU Motor Insurance Directives. Continue reading Moreno v MIB [2016] UKSC 52 – Applicable law, 4th Motor Insurance Directive, MIB