Holidays, Accident Claims and the Rome II Convention

Part I

Are you aware there is now a further complication with regard to making a claim if you are injured whilst on holiday in a country that is part of the European Union.   Until recently if you were injured abroad and brought a successful claim damages, the case would be ruled upon using UK law and any damages awarded would also be similar to those that a claimant would have received under UK law.

Recently it was decided under Rome II, (the European Union Regulation that aims unify the law between member states), that anyone injured in a holiday accident that occurred after 11 January 2009 would now have to have their case heard under the law of the country where the incident took place.   This means that the level of compensation awarded could be considerably lower than that provided by the England and Welsh Courts.

This decision was made further to a court hearing of a British man who had been injured in a car accident in south west France in summer 2007. He suffered two broken legs and brain damage as a result of the car crash.      In normal circumstances his claim would have been dealt with under English law, however at the time the case went to court the EU was attempting to apply the use of Rome II and it was suggested that his claim should be dealt with under French law. French compensation levels were lower than the British citizen would have been awarded under UK law.  However, in this instance the holiday accident claimant was awarded damages at UK levels.

This case served in part to form the basis of the European Court of Justice’s decision that claims for holiday makers etc who were involved in accidents resulting in personal injury or death would from January 2009 be dealt under the Rome II Convention.  Therefore, if you have an accident in which you sustain personal injury   in Spain then your claim may well be heard in a  Spanish Court.

Simply speaking any accident that occurs in a country that is part of the European Union and results in you making a claim is likely to be heard under the applicable law of the land in which the incident took place.

This published article may contain information of general interest about current legal issues, but does not give legal advice.

Discussing the effect of the Athens Convention Part 2.  

 As previously stated the Athens Convention is concerned with a carrier’s liability to passengers for death, personal injury and loss of or damage to luggage in the course of international carriage by sea and Article 14 of the Convention states that:  “No action for damages for the death of or personal injury to a passenger,or for the loss of or damage to luggage, shall be brought against a carrier or performing carrier otherwise than in accordance with this convention”.

What needs to be considered is your legal position when your package holiday includes carriage by sea which is otherwise covered by the Athens Convention?

The question is can you bring a claim further to Regulation 15 of the Package Travel Regulations 1992 without being held back by the articles within the Athen’s Convention i.e. if you (the Claimant) are injured on board a vessel, and such injury is caused by the negligence of the carrier or its employees.

In the recent case of :-

Williams & Debling v Fred Olsen Cruise Lines Ltd [2011]  Unreported, QB (Admiralty Court)

A Claim was brought by 4 Claimants against Fred Olsen Cruise Lines Ltd.    While re-joining the cruise liner in Bilbao, two of the Claimants fell from the gangplank into the sea when the mooring lines on the vessel failed and they swung out from their berth. The claim was defended on the basis that the failure of the mooring lines was the result of an entirely unexpected and unforeseeable extreme weather in the form of a severe gust of wind. Both the Claimants relied on expert opinion evidence from Master Mariners. The Claimants were successful in establishing liability and the Judge found that the Claimants could rely on article 3(3) of the Athens Convention and on res ipsa loquitur (the principle that the mere occurrence of some types of accident is sufficient to imply negligence). However, it was also found that they had succeeded in proving that negligence or fault was the cause of their injuries quite apart from the assistance of article 3(3) of the Athens Convention.

Based on the outcome of this recent case it would seem that the best way to ensure a successful outcome in the event that you have to make a claim due to an injury sustained whilst on a cruiseliner/boat is to ensure that your claim is made not only alleging negligence but also under the Athen’s Convention.


This published article may contain information of general interest about current legal issues, but does not give legal advice.

Who is Responsible for an Accident Onboard a Cruise Liner (Part 1)

If, whilst on a cruise, you are unfortunate enough to be involved in an accident resulting in personal injuries, then, you may have to bring a claim under the Athens convention.

The Athens Convention applies to 'International carriage by sea' (as a passenger you would be considered to be international carriage).   The provisions of the Athens Convention apply to voyages from ports in the UK that sail directly to their destination and do not have any other midway ports of call. The cruise line is responsible for the safety of their ship’s passengers from the point of embarkation, and, ends after the point of disembarkation. 

If you suffer an accident at sea or suffer from an illness onboard a cruise ship it is important to clarify whether or not the Athens Convention applies.   If it does apply you must remember that you will only have 2 years from the date of the incident which caused your injury in which to commence proceedings in the Admiralty Division of the High Court.

If court proceedings are not issued within this period then you will not be able to make a claim after the two year period has expired.   The Athens Convention imposes a belief of fault on the carrier (your cruise-liner) this means that the cruise line must prove the accident wasn't their fault, if, a passenger was injured or became ill during the cruise.

The disadvantage of making a claim under the Athen’s convention is that there are limits on the amount of compensation that can be claimed for personal injury or death occurring during a cruise at sea as compared to bringing a claim for negligence in common law.

This area of law is complex and there are other rules that may apply.  


This published article may contain information of general interest about current legal issues, but does not give legal advice.

The consequences of
Sub-letting your Council/Housing Association Property

Under Section 15 of the Housing Act 1988 there is a term in every assured tenancy that implies that  a tenant should not sub-let the property without the agreement of the Landlord. 

In the event that you do sub-let your council/housing association property  you will be in breach of your agreement with the Council under Ground 12  of the HA 1988. This could have serious consequences as the Council/Housing Association can apply for possession of the property.

This published article may contain information of general interest about current legal issues, but does not give legal advice.

Making an offer to settle a claim

Do you know that a Claimant or Defendant can put forward an offer to settle their claim at any time during proceedings to include prior to commencement of Court proceedings and during any Appeal process.   You need to ensure that this is done in compliance with Part 36 of the Civil Procedures Rules.  If the offer is not made following the correct format set out under the Civil Procedure Rules then even  a minor formal or technical defect would be fatal to your entitlement in respect of the offer to settle as can be seen in the latest case of several cases that have failed due to technical issues PHI Group Limited v Robert West Consulting Limited Citation: [2012] EWCA Civ 588 where a minor error proved fatal

 (1) A Part 36 offer must –

(a) be in writing; you should state separately at the top of the letter  i.e. This is a Part 36 offer subject to payment of my costs”

(b) within the body of the letter you should state that the letter is intended to have the consequences of Section I of Part 36;

(c) you should specify a period of not less than 21 days within which the defendant will be liable for the claimant's costs in accordance with rule 36.10 if the offer is accepted;

(d) You should make it absolutely clear whether it relates to the whole of the claim or to part of the claim it or to an issue that arises in the claim and if so to which part or issue; and

(e) you must clarify whether it takes into account any counterclaim.

If your claim is not straightforward and includes an offer for claim for provisional damages or if it is a personal injury matter and it involves a claim for future pecuniary loss.  Different rules apply.

In those circumstances please do not hesitate to contact us and we will assist you to prepare an appropriate Part 36 Offer to Settle Letter.

Good News for Litigants in person

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee agreed on the 1st October 2011 to increase the hourly rate a litigant in person can charge for their work in preparing their case from £9.25 to £18.00 per hour. 

So remember to make a detailed note of the time you spend preparing your claim so that you can provide the Judge with a detailed note at the final hearing and if you win he will then be able to award you some costs.  You also need to make sure that you take copies of all invoices and receipts you have in respect of Court Fees and Expert's reports obtained to support your claim.

The Egg Shell Principle

The Egg-shell skull principle says a defendant must take his victim as he finds him. So, for example  if a person negligently injures someone by asking them to climb a ladder which is unsafe and results in them falling,  they cannot complain if the injuries they have caused turn out to be more serious than expected because the victim suffered from a pre-existing weakness such as an unusually thin skull or a weak heart.