header-logo header-logo

Jurisdiction matters

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll