The claimant suffered damages in a road traffic accident in Spain caused by the respondent. A Spanish court would have allowed much lower damages. Such damages should normally be assessed in accordance with the law of the country where the accident happened, but the Act allowed other applicable law to be considered. In this case, both claimant and defendant lived in England, and the majority of damage transpired in England, and the court could and would calculate damages to English standards. The issue was a procedural one, and survived the change in law.
Gartland J said: ‘Even if I had not decided the section 12 point in the claimant’s favour, I would, unless persuaded that Spanish law did not recognise any head of damage recoverable by the claimant, have decided that quantification was purely procedural and should be carried out according to English law in any event.’
Judges:
Gartland J
Citations:
Times 21-Nov-2000, [2001] 1WLR 1003
Statutes:
Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 9, 11
Cited by:
Cited – Harding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
Cited – Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd CA 28-Jan-2002
The claimant who was Dutch, was a widow of a fisherman who had died at sea. The question on appeal was ‘in assessing damages for loss of dependency should benefits resulting from the loss be deducted from the damages?’ The claimant’s position under . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
International, Damages
Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80259
