Case update: Dawson v Thomson Airways Ltd
In an unsurprising judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal last week, the notion that the two-year limitation period provided by the Montreal Convention 1999 could be applicable to claims brought pursuant to EC Regulation 261/2004 by default was ruled out.
In December 2012, Mr Dawson brought a claim against the defendant/appellant carrier Thomson Airways for delay to a flight from London Gatwick to the Dominican Republic in December 2006. The timing of Mr Dawson’s claim is pertinent as he issued proceedings just prior to the expiration of the six-year limitation period applicable in England and Wales pursuant to section 9 of the Limitation Act 1980.
At County Court level, it was held that Mr Dawson was entitled to bring his claim due to the fact that the six-year limitation period provided by domestic law had not yet expired. The appellant carrier sought to appeal on the basis that the two-year limitation period provided by the convention was, in fact, the correct limitation period and had expired nearly four years previously…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the DLA Piper briefing.
News from DLA Piper
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from DLA Piper
Health Alert — Lane v Northern NSW Local Health District (No 3); Psychology Board of Australia v Tubara; and more
DLA Piper has released the 28 July 2014 issue of its Health Alert, which focuses on judgments, legislation and reports in the health sector.
In the midst of the gale-force winds of commentary whipped up by the Google case, we should pause and ask ourselves: just how ground-breaking is this decision?
Analysis from The Lawyer
Shearman & Sterling is making its presence felt in the City, squaring up to magic circle firms and looking to muscle in on key relationships. Private equity house Bridgepoint is one outfit that has had its head turned by the US firm.
A new breed of lawyer is smoothing the path for companies entering emerging or unstable jurisdictions