This article is by Max Archer of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The article considers the Montreal Convention: the regime governing the liability of air carriers to passengers in international carriage. The Convention is a well-worn route for passengers who have been injured aboard an aeroplane. Max considers the recourse available for claimants who have sustained psychiatric harm. Continue reading The Montreal Convention and Psychiatric Harm
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  UKSC 52 – Applicable law, 4th Motor Insurance Directive, MIB
This case comment is by Alex Carington of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The case is a rare example of the Court of Appeal considering proper approaches to assessment of evidence, breach of duty and causation in the context of an outbreak of illness on a cruise ship. Continue reading Swift & Ors v Fred Olsen Cruise Lines  EWCA Civ 785 – Food Poisoning, Athens Convention, Causation
In the final part of this series I look at how English law’s approach to the choice of applicable law may change post Brexit. For historical and political reasons the change may be radical. I conclude this series of blogs by making tentative predictions as to how English law’s approach to the conflict of laws may change following Brexit. Continue reading Brexit & Conflict of Laws: Part 3
This case comment is by Kate Boakes of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Haddon-Cave J’s judgment sets out practical guidance on issues of jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, contract formation, and alternative service in the context of service out of the jurisdiction. Continue reading Bill Kenwright Limited v Flash Entertainment FZ LLC  EWHC 1951 (QB) – Service, Gateways and Forum Non Conveniens
To understand how the situation might change post Brexit, one first has to consider the status quo. Council Regulation (EC) No 1215/2012, aka Brussels Recast, aka Judgment Regulation Recast, aka Brussels II, determines matters of jurisdiction for EU members apart from Denmark who opted out of the Regulation. As an EU regulation, Brussels II has direct effect in the UK. However, Brussels II is not universal in that “if the defendant is not domiciled in a Member State [jurisdiction shall be] determined by the law of the Member State” (article 6.1). Accordingly, Brussels II only forms part of the patchwork of English Law on jurisdiction, along with the Brussels Convention of 1968, the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgements Act of 1982, and the common law. Continue reading Brexit & Conflict of Laws: Part 2
Uncertainty flourishes in post-Brexit Britain. What deal will Britain strike with the rest of the EU? Or, for that matter, will Britain strike a deal with the EU? How will the government manage to negotiate a deal to retain access to the single market and restrict free movement of people? These huge political, social, economic and legal questions encompass many other much narrower questions including how Brexit will affect English law’s approach to the conflict of laws (jurisdiction and applicable law). It is this question which this blog series considers. Continue reading Brexit & Conflict of Laws: Part 1