The CJC-sponsored research project into experiences of remote civil court hearings reported this morning. The investigation into court users’ experiences was carried out during the first half of May and over 1,000 responses were submitted. Among its tentative findings is that largely procedural or interlocutory matters appear to lend themselves better to remote hearings; fully contested substantive issues perhaps less so.
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.