header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Conflict of laws

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
08 February 2013
Issue: 7547 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Wall v Mutuelle De Poitiers Assurances [2013] EWHC 53 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 208 (Jan)

Questions of what expert evidence the court should order, and, in particular, whether or not there should be one (or more) single joint expert(s) pursuant to CPR r 35 were matters of procedure within Art 1.3 of Regulation (EC) 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (Rome II). 

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Read All
Conveyancers celebrate U-turn over mortgage handbook fee
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
Are you suited to a career in prosecution?
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
LSB marks Mazur homework
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
NLJ this week: Stuck in the past?
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
NLJ this week: No automatic bar on ‘user damages’
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll