header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Conflict of laws

Stylianou v Toyoshima and another [2013] EWHC 2188 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 36 (Aug)

Generally, while it was clear that Art 4(3) of Rome II was only intended to be an escape clause and it was only to be applied exceptionally so as to preserve the intended application of the general rule to most cases, Art 4(3) of Rome II was not to be construed in the same manner as Art 4(1) of Rome II and should not, therefore, apply to direct damage. The use of the words “in all the circumstances” in Art 4(3) of Rome II required the court to consider all relevant material, so as to be able to assess whether the particular circumstances of the individual case were so exceptional that the general rule should not apply. Such a consideration was intended to include factors relating to the parties and would also include the consequences of the event or tort/delict. Such consequences would cover the injuries and damage arising from the tort, whether direct or indirect. If such a broad interpretation was not given to Art 4(3) of Rome II so that

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll