Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction

Keefe question to go back to CJEU

1 Comment

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 →

Comparative Law

The English Bar: reflections from Ljubljana

Leave a comment

This blog post is by Domen Turšič, who recently visited 12 KBW as a Pegasus Scholar. Domen studied law at the Universities of Ljubljana and Cambridge and is about to start a PhD on the circumstances precluding wrongfulness in international investment arbitration. In this blog, he reflects on some of the differences of approach between the legal systems in Slovenia and in England and Wales. Continue reading The English Bar: reflections from Ljubljana →

Montreal Convention

Slips, trips, and the Montreal Convention – what’s the position?

1 Comment

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

In Labbadia v Alitalia (Societa Aerea Italiana S.p.A) [2019] EWHC 2103, Margaret Obi, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, ruled on whether a slipping incident that took place as the Claimant disembarked from the Defendant’s flight was an ‘accident’ within the meaning of art. 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999.

The case provides a useful starting point for analysis of the particular issues associated with slipping and tripping cases under the Convention. These issues are considered in this blog post. Continue reading Slips, trips, and the Montreal Convention – what’s the position? →

Package Travel

Latest news in X v Kuoni Travel Ltd (ABTA intervening) [2019] UKSC 37: interim judgment handed down by Supreme Court

Leave a comment

The Supreme Court has today handed down an interim judgment in X v Kuoni Travel Ltd (ABTA intervening).

The effect of the judgment is to make a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) requesting clarification of principles of EU law.

The response of the CJEU will determine the approach that is appropriate to package travel cases brought under the 1992 Regulations concerning criminal acts by employees of hotels and other suppliers of holiday services.

William Audland QC, Nina Ross and Achas Burin of 12 King’s Bench Walk appear in the case on behalf of the Respondent upon instructions from Gary Tweddle at MB Law.

The interim judgment can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0102-judgment.pdf

The Supreme Court press release can be found here: https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0102-press-summary.pdf Continue reading Latest news in X v Kuoni Travel Ltd (ABTA intervening) [2019] UKSC 37: interim judgment handed down by Supreme Court →

Comparative Law

No fault personal injuries compensation – the New Zealand way

Leave a comment

This blog post is by David Green, a New Zealand qualified barrister and solicitor who recently visited 12 KBW for two weeks as a Pegasus Scholar.

In 2017, Lord Sumption offered some bold views to the Personal Injuries Bar Association in a speech provocatively entitled “Abolishing Personal Injuries Law – A Project”.  His proposed replacement was a system of compulsory no fault compensation, which incidentally is exactly the approach taken to personal injuries in New Zealand. This blog post sets out some reflections on the New Zealand approach in comparison to that in England and Wales. Continue reading No fault personal injuries compensation – the New Zealand way →

Insurance, Judgments Regulation, Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction and foreign hotels post-Keefe

Leave a comment

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 →