Luka Krsljanin succeeds in major High Court Judgment on the Rome II Regulation

Owen v Galgey & Others [2020] EWHC 3546 (QB) is a rare and valuable judgment on the proper interpretation of Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation, and only the second High Court judgment ever to have accepted that Article 4(3) applies.

Luka – instructed by Maud Lepez of Pierre Thomas & Partners – represented Mr Owen, a British national who suffered serious brain and spinal injuries whilst residing in a holiday home in France owned by the First and Second Defendants, British nationals. Luka successfully argued that, notwithstanding the parties’ shared habitual residence in England (which prima facie engaged Article 4(2) of Rome II) and their pre-existing relationship in England, the tort was manifestly more closely connected with France than with England, such that French Law should apply to the claim.

Of note, the Court was required to consider what impact pre-existing contractual relationships had on the application of Article 4(3), and so the judgment will be of value to cases arising in the commercial context.

Mr Justice Linden has provided a clear and careful analysis of the Rome II Regulation, which consider (amongst other things) the ramifications of the judgment in Marshall. The case is essential reading for all practitioners dealing with cross-border tort claims.

For a copy of the judgment, please click here


Neil Moody QC, Robert Cumming and Andrew Bershadski successful in the Court of Appeal case of Kadie Kalma v African Minerals [2020] EWCA Civ 144

Neil Moody QC, Robert Cumming and Andrew Bershadski successful in the Court of Appeal case of Kadie Kalma v African Minerals [2020] EWCA Civ 144.

In a wide-ranging judgment, Coulson LJ (with whom the President of the Queen’s Bench Division, Dame Victoria Sharp, and Irwin LJ agreed) dismissed the Claimant’s appeal against the judgment of Turner J, in which he had dismissed all the lead claims. The judgment of the Court of Appeal contains an important discussion of the principles of intention in common design, and the duty of care for acts of third parties in negligence.

Please follow the link below to see the full judgment, or contact if you would like to get in touch with Neil, Robert or Andrew about this case.

Kadie Kalma Judgment 17.02.20 (002)

Neil, Robert and Andrew were instructed by Lipman Karas LLP.


First High Court PSPO Challenge declares part of Richmond’s dog walking PSPO invalid

2TG’s Martin Porter QC and Jessica van der Meer have been successful in the first PSPO challenge to reach the High Court. They challenged London Borough of Richmond’s decision to restrict dog walking across its lands. Today Mrs Justice May declared Richmond’s PSPO partially invalid. This case will have important consequences for future PSPO challenges. This is a hot button issue given Ealing Council’s decision this week to use a PSPO to ban protestors outside an abortion clinic.

Click here to view judgment