header-logo header-logo

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

Jurisdiction matters

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 understand by these different dates?

Different meanings

Under EC

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll