header-logo header-logo

21 May 2009 / Richard Scorer
Issue: 7370 / Categories: Features , EU , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Jurisdiction matters

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll