The claim concerned the attempted recovery by insurers of the proceeds of a settlement paid for the loss of a ship. The question before the Supreme Court was whether English courts had jurisdiction under the rules in the Brussels I regulation. The interpretation of that regulation in matters relating to insurance has been more commonly seen in road traffic accident cases and tour operator / holiday claims. The underlying facts in Aspen may be very different to personal injuries sustained abroad, but the decision is nevertheless relevant to them.
The announcement yesterday (19 March 2020) of an inflationary increase in statutory bereavement damages in England & Wales once again brings approaches to valuing of this head of loss into focus. This piece looks at the differences across jurisdictions within the UK. It is worth emphasising that this is an entirely devolved topic for the UK’s constituent jurisdictions and that there is no evidence at all of any legislative moves towards harmonisation in this discrete area.
This piece is an update about yesterday’s judgment on the cross-border jurisdiction points at issue in the claim we outlined previously on the blog on 21 January 2020. One key question was stayed – that being jurisdiction in non-contractual claims featuring joinder of the foreign insured to a direct claim against the foreign insurer – given that the point is already before the CJEU in a different case. Although the remaining live jurisdictional arguments went against us, there is much in the 24 page judgment that is worth closer review.