PIL instrument(s)
Brussels I
Rome II
Case number and/or case name
Winrow v Hemphill [2014] EWHC 3164 (QB)
Details of the court
England and Wales, First Instance
Articles referred to by the court
Brussels I
Article 2
Paragraph 1
Article 6
Paragraph 1
Rome II
Article 4
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Date of the judgement
06 October 2014
Appeal history
None
CJEU's case law cited by the court
Summary
The claim was for personal injury damages caused by a road traffic accident which occurred on 16th November 2009 in Germany. The claimant was a UK national who, at the time of the accident, had been living in Germany because her husband was posted there. The first defendant was the car driver – another UK national, a wife of a husband from the British army posted in Germany. Both the claimant and the first defendant subsequently returned to the UK. The second defendant was domiciled in England. Proceedings were commenced in England under Brussels I. The liability was conceded by the first defendant’s insurer (i.e. the second defendant). On 6th December 2013, District Judge Jenkins entered a judgment for the claimants on the issue of liability, with damages to be assessed. A preliminary issue was whether the German or English was to be applied in this context. Mrs Justice Slade held that German law was applicable, stating: “62 Factors weighing against displacement of German law as the applicable law of the tort by reason of art.4(1) are that the road traffic accident caused by the negligence of the first defendant took place in Germany. The claimant sustained her injury in Germany. At the time of the accident both the claimant and the first defendant were habitually resident there. The claimant had lived in Germany for about eight-and-a-half years and remained living there for 18 months after the accident. 63 Under art.4(3) the court must be satisfied that the tort is manifestly more closely connected with English law than German law. Article 4(3) places a high hurdle in the path of a party seeking to displace the law indicated by art.4(1) or (2) . Taking into account all the circumstances, the relevant factors do not indicate a manifestly closer connection of the tort with England than with Germany. The law indicated by art.4(1) is not displaced by art.4(3) . The law applicable to the claim in tort is therefore German law.” [62-63].

This website is written and maintained by the University of Aberdeen's Research Applications and Data Management Team