Expert Witness Journal Issue 63 October 2025 - Flipbook - Page 27
Cross-border claims: English
Courts apply Spanish law in
serious injury case
by Yasmina Villar-Lopez, Associate at law 昀椀rm Weightmans
It is worth mentioning the following interesting
points arising from the judgments:
Summary of the facts
The case relates to a personal injury claim arising
out of a road tra昀케c accident in Spain and brought
against the MIB in England. On 21 July 2017, the
claimant who was a young British man, attended a
wedding in Mallorca with his girlfriend. In the early
hours of the morning, the claimant left on his own
to 昀椀nd a taxi back to the hotel. When he was close to
the centre of a nearby road, a white minivan (which
it transpired was uninsured), collided with him and
dragged him under its axle along the road surface
for nearly 200 feet. The claimant sustained severe
brain injuries as a result.
1.
Particularly notable is the high level of
contributory negligence found, (assessed at
65%) which resulted in an award for damages of
approximately £213,000.
2.
The Spanish system of compensation is based
on a strict Baremo of 昀椀xed tari昀昀 damages
for di昀昀erent types of injuries. The court was
presented with an argument that Recital 33
of the Rome II Regulation could undermine
the e昀昀ects of the Baremo. The court [EB1]
provided for the 昀椀rst time formal guidance as
to the applicability and e昀昀ect of Recital 33, and
concluded that the same cannot have any e昀昀ects
on the application of the Baremo rules. This is
a helpful point for defendant practitioners as
this judgment will serve as precedent to prevent
claimants from “escaping” strict foreign law
rules on quantum on cases where Rome II is
applicable.
3.
The importance of choosing the right foreign
experts. In England, foreign law is treated as a
question of fact which each party must prove
with their own expert evidence from a quali昀椀ed
lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction. However,
any foreign lawyer must be an independent
expert with obligations to the court and not
to the instructing party. Unfortunately for the
claimant in this case, the court found that the
claimant’s Spanish law expert failed in her duty
to the court resulting in harsh criticism of her
evidence, which ultimately had a detrimental
impact on the claim.
Jurisdiction and applicable law
The claimant opted to issue court proceedings in
England rather than in Spain, and not against the
driver, but against the United Kingdom’s Motor
Insurers’ Bureau (“MIB”) who stands in for the
Spanish compensation fund. Despite the claim being
pursued in England, Spanish law and its principles
of compensation were applicable to the claim.
Liability and quantum
Although primary liability of the uninsured Spanish
driver, and therefore liability of the MIB, had been
admitted prior to the commencement of the 14day trial (which took place in the High Court) in
November 2024, contributory fault and quantum
remained in dispute. The claim was pleaded at over
£3,000,000.
Trial and conclusions
A general judgment1 and a separate short judgment2
(on the issue of the application of Spanish penalty
interest alone)were 昀椀nally handed down on 31 July
2025.
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
25
OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2025
