header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 May 2009 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7370 / Categories: Features , EU , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Jurisdiction matters

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Part 2: Richard Scorer believes Rome II is imprecise and does not provide sufficient certainty

In my article on Rome II I explained how Council Regulation 864/2007/ EC on “the law applicable to non-contractual obligations” lays down a new body of choice of law rules for tort cases (NLJ, 1 May 2009, p 621). The Regulation replaces the existing law laid down in the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, as interpreted by the House of Lords in Harding v Wealands [2006] All ER (D) 40 (Jul). Effectively, Rome II reverses the decision in Harding. However, there are exceptions to the general rule under Rome II and overall the Regulation is unclear and does not provide certainty.

A complicating factor in analysing the impact of Rome II is confusion over its date of implementation. Rome II “came into force” on 19 August 2007. However, the Regulation “applies” from 11 January 2009. The Regulation also says that it applies to “events giving rise to damage after its entry into force”. What is the practitioner to

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll