This blog was launched by Nicholas Bevan in April 2013 to alert his fellow legal professionals to the systemic illegality that permeated the UK's national law provision for compulsory third party motor insurance. Major reforms have resulted. Unfortunately, Brexit has stalled this process, making this blog largely redundant. Earlier posts are retained here as archive material.
Dr Nicholas Bevan
Friday, 22 November 2013
England was the correct jurisdiction for an English holidaymaker gravely injured in Western Australia
Stylianou v Toyoshima and another  EWHC 2188 (QB)
This is an interesting case that considers the sort of
exceptional circumstance that can justify an English court quantifying a claim
that under Rome II would ordinarily fall outside its jurisdiction.
The case facts featured an English national who was rendered
tetraplegic in a road accident in April 2009 whilst holidaying in Western
Australia. Proceedings being issued in
Australia but which were later stayed. Liability was admitted.
Upon the claimant’s return to the UK she issued fresh
proceedings in England. Her reasons were
(i) her condition prevented her from to travelling back to Australia and (ii) that
all the remaining issues and evidence concerning her future care and needs lay in
this jurisdiction and (iii) that the
lower English discount rate would deliver in real terms a much higher award for
her than in Australia.
The judgment is of interest as it considers three issues:
·Which jurisdiction should apply? ·Which law should apply? ·Was the second action an abuse of process, given
the advanced state of the proceedings in Australia?
Sir Robert Nelson refused the strike out application and
ruled that in the special circumstances of the case, England had jurisdiction.
This case is considered in more detail in Butterworths Personal Injury Litigation
Service Bulletin issue 112.