Tag Archives: Choice of Law

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

Brexit & Conflict of Laws: Part 3

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

Committeri v (1) Club Mediterranée SA (2) Generali Assurances Iard SA [2016] EWHC 1510 (QB) – Package Travel Regulations, Jurisdiction, Rome I, Rome II

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

This interesting jurisdictional dispute involved an examination of the nature of a package tour operator’s duty of care – is the duty contractual or non-contractual? The answer to this question raised corresponding issues as to the applicability and effect of Rome I and II. Continue reading Committeri v (1) Club Mediterranée SA (2) Generali Assurances Iard SA [2016] EWHC 1510 (QB) – Package Travel Regulations, Jurisdiction, Rome I, Rome II