Middleton v Allianz Iard SA

Under sections 11 and 12 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, the law of the country where a personal injury occurs is displaced only where it is substantially more appropriate to apply another law.

The court must identify the issues, compare the connecting factors with each jurisdiction, and assess their significance. Nationality, present domicile and the forum for assessing damages may carry little weight where the accident, residence, vehicle, insurer and liability regime are connected with the place of the accident. Strict liability under the applicable foreign law, together with interim payments acknowledging that liability, may be decisive.

The claimant suffered severe injuries in France when she was struck by a vehicle driven by a family friend. She and her mother were then resident in France, although both later returned to and settled in England. The vehicle was French-registered and insured by the defendant, a French company.

The claimant brought proceedings in England under a direct right of action against the insurer. The preliminary issue was whether French law, presumptively applicable under section 11 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995, should be displaced under section 12 in favour of English law for determining substantive liability issues.

1. French law applied. The defendant failed to show that it was substantially more appropriate for English law to determine the substantive issues, including liability.
2. The court adopted the three-stage approach identified in Roerig v Valiant Trawlers Ltd [2002] EWCA Civ 21: identify the issue; identify the factors connecting the tort with each country; and assess the significance of those factors.
3. The claimant’s, her mother’s and the driver’s British nationality, and the claimant’s and her mother’s present domicile in England, were of little weight. At the time of the accident the claimant and her mother had lived in France for more than two years and intended to remain there. The driver, vehicle and insurer were also connected with France.
4. The accident occurred in France, where the Loi Badinter imposed strict liability. That was the determining factor, together with the defendant’s interim payments made in accordance with that regime, which acknowledged 100 per cent liability.
5. The fact that damages would be assessed in England was not determinative. Assessment of damages was a matter for the forum whether French or English law governed the substantive liability issues. Edmunds v Simmonds [2001] 1 WLR 1003 was distinguishable because it did not consider strict liability and did not suggest that liability would have been different under the foreign law.

The applicable law for the substantive issues in the claim against the insurer was therefore French law.