header-logo header-logo

Cairo claim disallowed

04 January 2018
Issue: 7775 / Categories: Legal News , Damages
printer mail-detail

The Supreme Court addresses the ‘tort gateway’ in Brownlie

A widow’s claim over a fatal car crash in Cairo has been disallowed by the Supreme Court, in a long-awaited case on personal injury outside the EU.

In Brownlie v Four Seasons Holdings [2017] UKSC 80, Lady Brownlie, the widow of leading international lawyer Sir Ian Brownlie QC, sued the holding company of Four Seasons Hotel Cairo both in tort and in contract over a car accident in January 2010. Before leaving England for Egypt, she had phoned the hotel to book a chauffeur-driven tour, having picked up a hotel leaflet about the tour on a previous visit. Tragically, the car crashed, killing Sir Ian and his daughter, Rebecca, and seriously injuring Lady Brownlie and Rebecca’s two children.

Before Lady Brownlie could serve her claim form on Four Seasons Holdings in Canada, she first had to seek permission from the court for service outside England and Wales. The Court of Appeal allowed her contractual claim and her claim under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, but disallowed her claim under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 (as Sir Ian’s executrix) and her claim for damages for her own injuries.

The Supreme Court, however, unanimously allowed Four Seasons Holdings’ appeal. It held that the Cairo hotel was owned and operated by Holdings’ Egyptian subsidiary, therefore there was no realistic prospect of their being held liable. As the driver’s actions were covered by Egyptian law, the 1976 Act did not apply.

Paul McClorry, head of travel litigation at Hudgell Solicitors, said: ‘Whilst the defendant succeeded in its appeal due to the corporate identity of the contracting party, the most significant comments are obiter.

‘By a 3:2 majority, the Supreme Court judges reaffirmed the previous line of authorities which provide greater access to justice through the English courts for English domiciled claimants who are seriously injured in a non-EU Member State. This is the first case that has found its way to the Supreme Court on the very important issue of the “tort gateway”; several cases were on hold pending this decision, so expect more developments in this area in the coming months and years.’

Issue: 7775 / Categories: Legal News , Damages
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll