Homawoo v GMF Assurance SA & Ors [2010] EWHC 1941 (QB) (27 July 2010)

Homawoo v GMF Assurance SA & Ors [2010] EWHC 1941 (QB) (27 July 2010)

No concluded view was expressed on the preliminary issue. The judge held that the language of Articles 31 and 32 of Rome II is unclear and that a definitive interpretation requires a ruling from the European Court of Justice. The judge inclined to the view that neither the commencement nor determination of proceedings should determine the application of Rome II, but could not make a final determination without ECJ guidance.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1941
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
No determination; reference to ECJ required
Legal Topics
Temporal Scope of Rome II Regulation, Applicable Law for Non Contractual Obligations, Assessment of Damages, Interpretation of EU Regulations
Private International Law Personal Injury Temporal Scope of Rome II Regulation Applicable Law for Non Contractual Obligations Assessment of Damages Interpretation of EU Regulations

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

Ratio Decidendi

No concluded view was expressed on the preliminary issue. The judge held that the language of Articles 31 and 32 of Rome II is unclear and that a definitive interpretation requires a ruling from the European Court of Justice. The judge inclined to the view that neither the commencement nor determination of proceedings should determine the application of Rome II, but could not make a final determination without ECJ guidance.

Court Disposition

No determination; reference to ECJ required

Orders

  • No concluded view on preliminary issue; interpretation of Articles 31 and 32 of Rome II to be referred to the European Court of Justice