Judgment appealed:  EWCA Civ 926
This case considers a declare for contribution introduced in opposition to Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH (“AKV”) who, as a 3rd celebration pursuant to the Civil Legal responsibility (Contribution) Act 1978 (“the 1978 Act”), the defendants declare is liable in respect of the identical injury as they’re.
The events agree that the claimant’s declare in opposition to the defendants (The Troopers, Sailors, Airmen and Households Affiliation and the Ministry of Protection (who agreed to indemnify the SSAFA)) is ruled by German regulation, that any legal responsibility of the third celebration to the claimant can also be ruled by German regulation and that, making use of home alternative of regulation guidelines, German regulation would apply to the contribution declare until the 1978 Act has overriding impact. If the contribution declare is ruled by German regulation it’s time barred. Nevertheless, the defendants keep that the 1978 Act has overriding impact with the end result that limitation is ruled by the regulation of England and Wales and the contribution declare just isn’t time barred.
At first, it was held that the 1978 Act had an overriding impact and utilized regardless of home alternative of regulation guidelines. The Courtroom of Enchantment agreed, dismissing AKV’s enchantment. AKV now appeals to the Supreme Courtroom.
HELD – The Supreme Courtroom unanimously allowed the enchantment.
The difficulty earlier than the court docket is whether or not the 1978 Act has overriding impact in order that it applies to all contribution claims introduced in England and Wales, or whether or not it applies solely when home alternative of regulation guidelines point out that the contribution declare in query is ruled by the regulation of England and Wales.
The 1978 Act doesn’t present expressly that it has overriding impact. It doesn’t present that the 1978 Act applies regardless of the overseas regulation in any other case relevant to the contribution declare. The query is whether or not such an intention should be implied from the provisions of the statute. Three statutory provisions had been recognized variously by the Courtroom of Enchantment as supporting overriding impact: sections 1(6), 2(3)(c) and seven(3). The Supreme Courtroom, nonetheless, considers these provisions equivocal. Their efficacy just isn’t dependent upon overriding impact. Specifically, even within the absence of overriding impact, part 1(6) might be efficient in lots of conditions reminiscent of the place the events to the contribution declare are in a particular relationship ruled by the regulation of England and Wales.
Nothing within the admissible Parliamentary supplies or the legislative historical past helps the view that the laws was supposed to have an overriding impact. Nevertheless, the Invoice was a Legislation Fee Invoice and statements by the Fee in different stories counsel it was not supposed to have an overriding impact. The load of educational commentary strongly favors the view that the 1978 Act didn’t have overriding impact.
The court docket thought-about Parliamentary supplies and the legislative historical past of the Act, in addition to statements made by the Legislation Fee and authorities. It was held that the load of educational commentary strongly favored the view that the 1978 Act didn’t have overriding impact.
The Supreme Courtroom was influenced particularly by two issues. First, there might be many conditions during which a contribution declare might be ruled by the regulation of England and Wales, however the truth that the underlying liabilities are ruled by a overseas regulation. Secondly, it’s tough to see why Parliament ought to have supposed to confer a statutory proper of contribution every time the celebration from whom the contribution is sought may be introduced earlier than a court docket on this jurisdiction, whatever the regulation with which the contribution declare has its closest connection . A failure of overseas regulation to supply for contribution claims just isn’t a defect requiring treatment by laws on this jurisdiction. Furthermore, it will appear opposite to precept for the regulation of England and Wales to be utilized if the contribution declare had been most intently linked to a overseas system of regulation.
For the Judgment, please see:
For the Press Abstract, please see: