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 [2017] 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
Jurisdiction, Joinder and Limitation: Spring v Ministry of Defence & Anor
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 [2017] 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
Slips and Trips: The Athens Convention 1974 and Package Travel Regulations
In Jennings v TUI UK Limited (t/a Thomson Cruises) [2018] EWHC 82 (Admlty) on 13 November 2017 in the High Court of Justice, Admiralty Court, Alex Carington of 12 King’s Bench Walk, instructed by Mark Fanning of Miles Fanning Legal, appeared before the Admiralty Registrar Jervis Kay QC for the Defendant in a case considering the application of the Athens Convention for the Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea 1974 as amended by the 2002 Protocol (the “Athens Convention“) and the Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 (the “Package Travel Regulations“).
In particular, the Court gave useful guidance on when “carriage” ended in the context of disembarking from a cruise ship into a modern port terminal: namely, as soon as the passenger stepped off the cruise ship onto a walkway operated by the Port Authority.
This blog post may be considered alongside our recent case study of the Court’s approach to a slipping injury claim brought under the Montreal Convention 1999. Continue reading Slips and Trips: The Athens Convention 1974 and Package Travel Regulations
Slips and Trips under the Montreal Convention 1999 – a recent example
In Anderson v British Airways (Unreported) 7 December 2017, Bury St Edmunds County Court, Aliyah Akram of 12 King’s Bench Walk, instructed by Jaime Padron of Slater & Gordon, appeared for the claimant in a case considering the application of Article 17 of the Montreal Convention 1999.
Mr Anderson was a passenger on a British Airways flight from Cairo to London Heathrow. As he was disembarking via an airbridge he slipped and fell to the floor. He alleged that his fall had been caused by a small puddle of water on the floor.
Mr Anderson brought his claim under Article 17 of the Convention, which provides that:
“The carrier is liable for damage sustained in case of death or bodily injury of a passenger upon condition only that the accident which caused the death or injury took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”
British Airways denied that the floor had been wet and argued that, even if it had been, Mr Anderson had not suffered an accident within the meaning of the Convention. Continue reading Slips and Trips under the Montreal Convention 1999 – a recent example
Injury by Exposure to Oil Well Fumes – The Burden of Proof and a ‘Flexible’ Approach to Causation
This blog post is by James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
The Privy Council decision in Petroleum Co of Trinidad and Tobago Ltd v Ryan and Anor [2017] UKPC 30 is based primarily on its own facts, but contains two broader points of interest for tort lawyers.
The first is the Privy Council’s refusal to draw an adverse inference or to shift the burden of proof to a defendant in circumstances where a ‘gap in the [defendant’s] evidence’ had not been explored with the witnesses at trial. This aspect of the decision highlights the importance of allowing another party the opportunity to explain its own failure to adduce potentially relevant evidence before inviting a court to draw an adverse inference in respect of the same.
The second is the Privy Council’s rejection of a sanguine approach to causation in cases involving environmental issues. Lord Carnwath (delivering judgment on behalf of the whole court) gives a concise reminder that Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613 is not authority for the general proposition that it may on occasion be appropriate to depart from the normal ‘but for’ test to causation. That decision involved a finding by the court that both guilty and innocent causative agents had as a matter of fact operated cumulatively to cause the claimant’s injury. Lord Carnwath’s decision on this point is consistent with the position adopted last year by the Privy Council in the case of Williams v Bermuda Hospitals Board [2016] UKPC 4.
Bonnington Castings does not therefore provide a basis for sidestepping the stringencies of the ‘but for’ test to causation where the court cannot first be satisfied of a link between the relevant agent(s) and the injury on standard causative principles. Continue reading Injury by Exposure to Oil Well Fumes – The Burden of Proof and a ‘Flexible’ Approach to Causation
Lungowe & Ors v Vedanta Resources Plc v Konkola Copper Mines Plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1528: Anchoring defendants, and suing the parent for the sins of their subsidiaries
This blog is by John-Paul Swoboda of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Chandler v Cape [2012] EWCA Civ 525 was described in the Economist as “A little-noticed court case with big implications”[1]. 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) [2005] 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 [2017] EWCA Civ 1528: Anchoring defendants, and suing the parent for the sins of their subsidiaries
Two Recent Holiday Sickness Decisions – Dishonesty and Alternative Causes
This blog post is by James Beeton of 12 King’s Bench Walk.
Introduction
We are grateful to James Candlin of 12 King’s Bench Walk for sending us copies of the judgments in two recent holiday sickness claims which he successfully defended at trial: Lavelle v Thomas Cook Tour Operators (Unreported) 10 July 2017, Liverpool County Court and Bartle v TUI UK Ltd (Unreported) 24 August 2017, Port Talbot County Court. Both judgments raise interesting points for practitioners in this area in relation to both dishonesty and causation. Continue reading Two Recent Holiday Sickness Decisions – Dishonesty and Alternative Causes
