The Warsaw Convention allows ‘forum shopping’, and the doctrine of forum non conveniens applies. Article 28(1) specifies the jurisdictions in which claims under the Convention may be brought. If the English Court is one of those jurisdictions, then our procedural rules which permit an action to be stayed in favour of another jurisdiction on grounds of convenience should not be applied in favour of another competent jurisdiction.
Phillips LJ said: ‘by way of example, if the procedural law of the chosen forum imposed a 12 month limitation period, it does not seem to me that this could displace the two year period of limitation laid down by article 29 of the Convention’.
Judges:
Phillips LJ
Citations:
Times 15-Feb-1996, [1996] QB 702
Statutes:
Warsaw Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules regarding International Air Transport 1929
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – GKN Westland Helicopters Ltd and Another v Korean Air Lines Co Ltd; Press Tech Controls Ltd v Same ComC 19-May-2003
The sum accepted as a payment in, in an air carriage case was capable of being the ‘amount of damages’ awarded under the convention. That it exceeded the amount offered in settlement negotiations meant that the rights to costs under article 22.4 . .
Cited – Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Hot Air balloon was an aircraft: damages limited
The claimant was injured flying in the defendant’s hot air balloon. The defendant said that the journey was covered by the 1967 Regulations and the damages limited accordingly. The claimant appealed against a decision that the balloon was an . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
International, Jurisdiction, Transport
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.83735