- Rome II and the need to consider foreign limitation rules (Pandya v Intersalonika General Insurance Co SA)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: this case considered the application of Regulation (EC) 864/2007, Rome II dealing with the governing law of non-contractual obligations and whether the need for service of the claim form was a rule of procedure or fell to be considered under the rules of prescription and limitation—in this case the relevant national law in question (that of Greece) required the claim to be served as well as issued to stop the limitation period running. The court considered it to be a rule of prescription and limitation, within the meaning of Article 15(h) of Regulation (EC) 864/2007, Rome II. The claim not having been served in time, was struck out. Written by Andrew Butler QC, barrister at Tanfield Chambers, London.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial