The areas of work in which we have particular expertise, experience and excellence.
The areas of work in which we have particular expertise, experience and excellence.
Articles, Briefings, News | Thu 19th Mar, 2020
In an effort to avoid the C-word and to provide some distraction in these troubled times, this Newsletter concentrates on two recent High Court decisions: Pandya v Intersalonika [2020] EWHC 273; [2020] 1 WLUK 246 (QB) and Perez v KBC Verzekeringen & Others [2020] 21 February (QB, unreported).
Both cases were listed for preliminary issue Trial and arose out of “Odenbreit–style” claims against an EU insurer (a motor and professional indemnity insurer). Accordingly, both claims were governed by a foreign applicable law: the law of Greece and the law of Belgium respectively. Both cases were issued (by Part 7 Claim Form) within the applicable foreign limitation period, but were served (validly and outside the jurisdiction) after the foreign limitation period had expired. In broad outline, the relevant foreign limitation period provided that limitation could be “interrupted” by the commencement of proceedings, but – where the foreign procedural code required issue/filing and service in order for there to be valid commencement of proceedings – did this mean that a failure to serve within limitation condemned the case to a time-bar? Read on dear reader …
To read the newsletter in full click here
