Homawoo v GMF Assurance SA & Ors

No concluded view expressed; court determined that interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of Rome II requires a ruling from the European Court of Justice before the preliminary issue can be decided.

Parties: Claimant: Mr Deo Antoine Homawoo; First Defendant: GMF Assurance SA; Second Defendant: Ms Adeline Verbeke; Third Defendant: Mr Stephane Pecqueur
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 27 July 2010
Procedural Posture: Personal Injury / Preliminary Issue Determination
Outcome: Preliminary issue not determined; reference to ECJ required.
Legal Topics: Temporal Scope of Regulation (ec) 864/2007 (rome Ii), Applicable Law for Non Contractual Obligations, Assessment of Damages

Private International Law European Union Law Temporal Scope of Regulation (ec) 864/2007 (rome Ii) Applicable Law for Non Contractual Obligations Assessment of Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2

Parties

Mr Deo Antoine Homawoo

Claimant

GMF Assurance SA

First Defendant

Ms Adeline Verbeke

Second Defendant

Mr Stephane Pecqueur

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Preliminary Issue Determination

Legal Issues

1 Whether Regulation (EC) 864/2007 ‘Rome II’ applies to the Claimant’s claim

Ratio Decidendi

No concluded view expressed; court determined that interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of Rome II requires a ruling from the European Court of Justice before the preliminary issue can be decided.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue not determined; reference to ECJ required.

Orders

Interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of Rome II to be referred to the European Court of Justice.