When within Rome I or II, do as your EU counterpart might (or might not) do but not in quite the same way they would do it.

12 March 2014. Published by Jake Hardy, Partner

It seems fairly uncommon[1] for a personal injury action to become a precedent of interest to, and significance for, commercial lawyers.

It seems even more unusual to find the writings of Ronald Dworkin cited in such a context. In Steven Wall –v- Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances[2], the Court of Appeal confounded both of these prejudices when it considered the application of the Regulation 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). In particular, it examined the extent to which Rome II imports the foreign law and procedure into the English courts in cases where that Regulation applies, and the scope and meaning of 'law' in that context. The conclusions which the Court of Appeal reached have significance in commercial law both in the context of non-contractual causes of action to which Rome II applies, but also in the context of contractual causes of action to which Rome I[3] applies, as that contains a materially identical provision.

To read the full article on this case, including the factual background and case comment, please click here.

[1] but not unheard of: Owosu –v- Jackson springs to mind (ECJ, 2005/C28102)

[2] 2014 EWCA Civ 138

[3] Regulation 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations.

Stay connected and subscribe to our latest insights and views 

Subscribe Here