Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
MCELROY V MCALLISTER
|
DOUBLE DELICTI motor incident, widow brought the action. all individuals involved in accident were scottish but the accident took place in england. Court applied the double rule. Her claim was acceptable by scots law but not by english so failed on the lex fori limb. Scots court wouldnt apply the diluted rule so she only got funeral costs. |
|
|
MITCHELL V MCCULLOCH |
DOUBLE DELICTI Shooting injury and was civil assault by lex fori and the lex delicti (the bahamas). M was claiming a lot of money. Could the heads of damage satisfy the double rule? Satisfied the delicti but not the fori and scots court werent open to dilute the rules. |
|
|
PHILLIPS V EYRE |
FOUNDATION OF DOUBLE DELICTI RULE - eyre was governor in jamaica who had to suppress rebellion. P brought action in england sueing E for imprisonment. E defence was that he wasnt liable under lex loci delicti. To sue for tort in england the behaviour had to be actionable in delict by the lex fori and the lex loci delicti. |
|
|
THE MARY MOXHAM |
British ship damaged a spanish pier and action brought in england. Under lex loci delicti spanish law the capain of the ship was liable not the owner as it was in english law. party autonomy not a possibility under common law |
|
|
BOYS V CHAPLIN |
Flexible exception - road accident in Malta - car collided with motorbike which boys were driving. Both english and lived in england but both stationed in malta at the time. entitled to more damages in english law so wanted to use this but only lex loci available. Flexible exception to the double rule - particular issue can be covered by law of the country which has the most significant relationship with teh occurance and the parties |
|
|
EDMUNDS V SIMMONS |
car crash rented in spain and collided with spanish lorry. Mrs E sued her friend in england who was driving to recover damages. Applying s11 law of the place where the events occured. (1995 act) pointed to spanish law but this lead to a much lower award of damages. Collision occured in spain,, driver of lorry was spanish, vehicals were spanish etc. Both english domiciliaries. All of damage and loss of earnings arose in england. Substantially more appropriate to use English law. |
|
|
ROERIG V VALIANT TRAWLERS |
Dutch woman brought action for deceased partner. Killed working on english shipping vessel. S11 law but argument that there should be displacement under s12 for dutch law. 1995 act. case was not seen suitable to displace action |
|
|
HARDING V WEALANDS |
if the s11 law happens to be the law of the domicile of either party it is hard to find the place where that law would be the link |
|
|
HOMAWOO V GMF ASSURANCE SA |
Accident occured after the date of enforcement of rome 2 reg - 29th august 2009. Proceedings weren't until 2010 so did it fall under rome 2? ECJ said that rome 2 applies to events giving rise to damages after 11th jan 2009. problem of knowing whether it applies to events or damage that occured after that date - interpretation issue |
|
|
WINROW V HEMPHILL |
UK army wife moved to germany as her husband had been posted there. Car crashed and suffered injuries. after the accident they returned to england earlier than planned. action brought against german car driver. Art 4.1 given the locus of the accident was germany the law of the place the damage was suffered. Argued 4.2 as both parties were HR in england. she had been living in germany for over 8 years but she said this was involuntary. court said HR was germany. used 4.3 manifestly more closesly connected with england. court tried to find 'centre of gravity' they said there is no temporal relevance |
