header-logo header-logo

08 February 2013
Issue: 7547 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Wall v Mutuelle De Poitiers Assurances [2013] EWHC 53 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 208 (Jan)

Questions of what expert evidence the court should order, and, in particular, whether or not there should be one (or more) single joint expert(s) pursuant to CPR r 35 were matters of procedure within Art 1.3 of Regulation (EC) 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Rome II). 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft—Clare Dewar

DAC Beachcroft strengthens Scottish real estate capabilitywith partner appointment

Womble Bond Dickinson—Brendan Ryan

Womble Bond Dickinson—Brendan Ryan

Womble Bond Dickinson appoints Brendan Ryan as partner in Public Law Projects team

Parklane Plowden Chambers—five appointments

Parklane Plowden Chambers—five appointments

Parklane Plowden Chambers welcomes five new barristers

NEWS
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
Police powers targeting concealed identities at protests come with procedural conditions that could determine whether prosecutions succeed
back-to-top-scroll