The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association - Forces Help & Anor v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29 (02 November 2022)
Citation:The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association - Forces Help & Anor v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29 (02 November 2022).
Subjects invoked: 12. 'Employment'.80. 'Travel Agents'.
Rule of thumb:If a legal issue is caused in a foreign country, but you have a right to raise the matter in the UK Courts, the time bar limit of what country applies – the foreign country or the UK? It is the time-bar limit of the foreign country – virtually all the other procedural laws of the UK will apply, but not that one.
Background facts:
The basic facts of the case were that the claimant was Mr Harry Roberts. Roberts’ parent were stationed in a UK Armed Forces base in Germany, and Roberts’ mother was pregnant with him. Roberts’ mother then went into labour and went to a hospital in Germany which was used by the UK armed forces. Tragically, there were complications with the delivery of baby Roberts, and he suffered a brain injury. Roberts raised a case in the UK accusing the German midwife who delivered him of negligent medical practices. However, by the time Roberts went to raise this case against the German Hospital in the UK Courts it was time-barred in Germany, but not time-barred in the UK.
Parties argued
Roberts made several arguments to make his case that UK time-bar laws should apply to his case rather than German time-bar laws. Roberts argued that as the UK armed forces base was considered a controlled territory of the UK abroad, then this was an extra-territorial part of the UK, and this was where the contract was formed with the hospital to provide the medical services for the army base, and as that contract was technically formed in an extra-territorial part of the UK the UK law therefore applied to it rather than German law. Roberts also argued that time-bar was a procedural law matter, and even if German law applied on liability, UK procedural law applied, which thereby meant that the principle of overriding effect under the UK 1978 Civil Contribution Act applied, and therefore UK procedural law under & its more lax time bar periods should apply meaning that the case was not time-barred.
Judgment:
This Court went through a difficult and long-considered reasoning process, and ultimately arrived at the conclusion that the principle of territoriality was the one which applied most closely to this matter and to the German hospital. Both German medical negligence law and key points of its procedural law therefore applied to Roberts’ case, and under German law the case was time-barred, so Roberts was unable to proceed with it.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘81. Nevertheless, I am persuaded that the 1978 Act was not intended to have overriding effect so as to displace conventional choice of law rules. In coming to this conclusion, I am influenced in particular by two considerations… it seems clear to me that there will be many situations in which a contribution claim will be governed by English law (procedural), notwithstanding the fact that the underlying liabilities are governed by a foreign law. In particular this will be so in cases where there exists a special relationship between B and C. As a result, this cannot be a justification for displacing conventional choice of law rules… Secondly … I can see no sound reason why the UK Parliament should be legislating in order to remedy perceived deficiencies in foreign laws in the manner suggested and there is nothing in the legislation to suggest that that was the objective’, Lord Lloyd-Jones at 81-83
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.