In this article, Corinne Novell and Peter Hale cast their minds back to early 2020 and the outbreak of the pandemic in order to comment on two recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’). Both decisions, handed down on the same date and by the same chamber of the CJEU, relate to a reference for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Directive (EU) 2015/2302 (“the Package Travel Directive”). Article 12 of the Package Travel Directive provides as follows: Termination of the package travel contract and the right of withdrawal before the start of the package Mem ..read more

In this post Chris Fleming looks at the recent High Court decision in Szrek & Ors v Div-Ing DOO & Ors [2024] EWHC 219 (KB), in which the Court considered an application for permission to serve a claim form and associated documents on the defendants out of the jurisdiction in a personal injury claim arising from a diving accident in Croatia. Background In August 2020, Mr Szrek and his family[1] went on holiday to Dubrovnik. Mr Szrek was a qualified diver and booked a diving excursion with the first defendant. The first defendant was Croatian company offering diving and water-based excur ..read more

Following the publication of the UK government’s response to the consultation which sought views on plans for the UK to become a Contracting Party to the Hauge Convention 2019 on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (“Hague 2019”), the UK government has confirmed that the UK “will sign Hague 2019 as soon as practicable”. A copy of the government response can be read here. For those practising in international personal injury this is a welcome but meagre bowl of gruel to put on an otherwise empty post-Brexit table. It is not Lugano, but at least it is ..read more

The Supreme Court has handed down its long-awaited judgment in Griffiths v TUI [2023] UKSC 48, an appeal which directly concerns a Package Travel holiday sickness claim but which will also indirectly affect all those who are involved in civil litigation, due to wide ramifications of the Court’s consideration of the issue of uncontroverted expert evidence. In this post, Peter Hale considers the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal. Background to the appeal By way of a recap, Mr Griffiths brought a holiday sickness claim against TUI under the P ..read more

Mann v Towarzystwo Ubezpieczen Inter Polska S.A and Ors is a useful first instance judgment on the assessment of damages arising from negligent cosmetic surgery abroad. The rising trend for such surgery suggests that travel law practitioners are likely to become well versed in claims of this nature. Aliyah Akram acted for the Claimant in Mann and this post is written by Jessica Muurman. Background Mrs. Mann already had a complex medical history, she has suffered from both physical and mental health challenges well before she embarked on cosmetic surgery. Significantly, in January 2010 she unde ..read more

“It is their problem, not yours!” Guidance to judges on parties seeking to adduce remote evidence from overseas issued by the Designated Civil Judge for Hampshire, Wiltshire and the Isle of Wight, quoted in Amanda Seafood PTE Ltd v Sykes Seafood Ltd [2023] EW Misc 13 (CC) Although Sir Julian Flaux issued his Practice Note on Witnesses Giving Evidence Remotely back in May 2021, the rules for overseas witnesses are still catching out unsuspecting litigants, sometimes with devastating consequences for their cases. So, this blog post by James Pickering is a reminder of the key principles for over ..read more

This blog post was written by Patrick Vincent KC and Max Archer. In this action On the Beach Ltd (OTB) and associated companies sought to recover from Ryanair sums for which OTB was liable to its customers pursuant to the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements Regulations 2018 (the PTRs). The judgment determined summary judgment/strike out applications by both sides. Many interesting issues were considered but this Blog concentrates on the most interesting – whether Regulation 29 of the PTRs confers a right of action on PTR organisers and retailers. In this case OTB essentially wanted R ..read more

On Thursday 4th May 2023 Mr Justice Martin Spencer handed down judgment in the conjoined appeals Nicholls v Mapfre & Woodward v Mapfre, adding another appellate decision to the line of cases on the hard fought issue of the correct approach to Spanish Interest in Rome II cases. By way of overview, in both cases the judges below exercised their judicial discretion pursuant to s.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 to award a rate of interest mirroring that which would have awarded by the Spanish Court. Mapfre appealed both decisions. Mr Justice Martin Spencer dismissed the Appellant’s appeal. In ..read more

In this post, John-Paul Swoboda provides his commentary on the recent decision in Arthern v Ryanair DAC [2023] EWHC 46 (KC). When a person slips on some liquid on a floor, whether it be by a poolside, on an aeroplane, or elsewhere we call it is an accident. A slip is, by definition, unexpected. A slide may be intentional, but a slip cannot be. If like me, you consider the above uncontroversial propositions you may find it surprising that in Arthern v Ryanair DAC the appeal court found a slip on liquid in a plane was not an accident. The Montreal Convention, which applied to the facts of this c ..read more

As 2022 comes to an end I wanted to take a brief moment to reflect on a busy year (yes, I know, another one of these ‘year in reviews’) for the 12KBW International and Travel Group. First and foremost, thank you to anyone who reads this blog, shares our posts and engages with the content we produce. As a Group we’ve been incredibly lucky to have had James Beeton as the editor of this blog for so long. Under his stewardship this blog has become, undoubtedly, one of the go-to resources for travel practitioners. Thank you, James. I am both excited and daunted to have taken over from a true travel ..read more