{"id":243011,"date":"2021-01-29T17:55:49","date_gmt":"2021-01-29T12:25:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=243011"},"modified":"2021-01-29T20:20:46","modified_gmt":"2021-01-29T14:50:46","slug":"case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/","title":{"rendered":"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"

I.Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Brownlie case<\/em>[1]<\/a>, subject of comment on jurisdictional aspects of \u201cdamage\u201d in tortious claims, centered on the rules applicable on service out where tort claims have connections with UK Court, only to the extent where claimant suffers consequential damages within its territory.<\/p>\n

II. Brief Description of Facts<\/strong><\/p>\n

Litigation before the High Court of England and Wales[2]<\/a> commenced between Lady Christine Brownlie, widow of renowned international lawyer Sir Ian Brownlie QC and Four Seasons Holdings Incorporated (Canadian Corporation) running a chain of hotels by the name and style of Four Seasons. She along with her husband, daughter and grandchildren suffered a tragic accident in Cairo, Egypt, on a holiday. Their excursion on 3-1-2010 resulted in a car crash whereby Lady Brownlie and the grandchildren survived serious injuries. However, Sir Ian Brownlie and their daughter died.<\/p>\n

It is Lady Brownlie\u2019s evidence that on her previous visit she had taken a brochure, published and circulated by Four Seasons advertising safari tours provided by them. She contacted the hotel before leaving England for the holiday through telephone and made a booking to hire a chauffeur-driven vehicle for an excursion with the concierge of the hotel.<\/p>\n

Lady Brownlie\u2019s claims were against \u2014 (a<\/em>) Four Seasons Holdings Inc., the holding company (first defendant); (b<\/em>) Nova Park SAE (Egyptian company), owner of the hotel building (as per Lady Brownlie\u2019s solicitors) (second defendant).<\/p>\n

The three tortious claims by Lady Brownlie, through service out jurisdiction after her return to England against defendants (Canadian) were for (a<\/em>) \u201cpersonal claim\u201d on account of severe injuries suffered on her person; (b<\/em>) being a dependent, for loss of her husband under Fatal Accidents Act, 1976; and (c<\/em>) as an executrix of the estate of Sir Brownlie, for the loss and damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1934.<\/p>\n

III. Applicable Rules of Jurisdiction\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Prior to the Brownlie case<\/em>[3]<\/a>, English courts since 1852 opined that jurisdiction in tort cases was delimited by the power of the court[4]<\/a>, for permission for grant of service on the defendant subject to the claimant\u2019s proof that a serious issue existed for trial by England courts (forum conveniens<\/em>).[5]<\/a><\/p>\n

According to English common law, English courts have adjudicatory competence on the basis of \u201csubmission\u201d and \u201cpresence\u201d. The service of proceedings on a foreign-based defendant is possible wherein the defendant is domicile of European Union (EU) member State\/another part of UK. As per Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) (Rules 6.32 and 6.33), the claimant is not required to take the permission of the court and Brussels I Regulation Recast is applicable.<\/p>\n

However, in a cross- border commercial matter wherein the defendant is not domiciled, the claimant needs a prior permission of the court before submission of claim form (outside jurisdiction) and an English Court, may grant permission, as per the CPR (Domestic Law of UK).[6]<\/a> Exercise of discretionary powers[7]<\/a> \u00a0by the court to allow service out are subject to the main obligations being satisfied by the claimant. These mandatory service out conditions on a foreign-based defendant are[8]<\/a>\u2014<\/p>\n

(i<\/em>) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Application for permission (Rule 6.36) setting out grounds in Para 3.1 of Practice Direction 6-B. \u201cGood arguable case\u201d to be tested on the ground that at least one of the claims by the parties falls within the \u201cgateways\u201d of Practice Directions.<\/p>\n

(ii<\/em>) \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Belief that the claim has a reasonable prospect of success.<\/p>\n

(iii<\/em>)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 A \u201creasonable issue\u201d must exist between the claimant and defendant and \u201creasonably\u201d tried on merits by the court.<\/p>\n

Discretion is exercised once the court believes that England and Wales are forum conveniens <\/em>(proper place) for the claim to be brought, by applying the test in Spiliada Maritime Corpn. <\/em>v. Cansulex Ltd.<\/em>[9]<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In Lady Brownlie case<\/em>[10]<\/a>, the application for permission of the claim founded on contract to serve out was based on Practice Direction 6-B, Para 3.1(6)(a<\/em>), contending that the contract was made within jurisdiction. Her claim founded on tort was based on Practice Direction 6-B, Para 3.1(9)(a<\/em>), further arguing consequential losses were suffered in England. She placed reliance on an earlier decision[11]<\/a> to support that consequential damage sustained by her in England was sufficient to satisfy requirements of CPR Practice Direction 6-B Para 3.1(9)(a<\/em>) gateway. However, defendants supported the decision in Erste Group Bank AG (London) <\/em>v. JSC (VMZ Red October)<\/em>[12]<\/a> wherein English courts determined the meaning of damage preferring direct damage interpretation [in torts \u2013 CPR \u00a0Para 3.1(9)(a<\/em>)] in line with the Brussels I Regulation Recast.<\/p>\n

In my opinion, a fading line of distinction distinguishes direct damage (which completes cause of action) from damage that is consequential leaving applicability to be an open question.<\/p>\n

IV. Interpretation of Rules on Jurisdiction and Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

Claimant, resident of England brought the claim in England against the defendant of a Canadian Holding Company, on the ground that the contract for excursion was with defendant or that defendant was vicariously liable for fatal accident due to driver\u2019s negligence.<\/p>\n

The analysis of English Court\u2019s approach is primarily for the determination of \u201cdamage\u201d as per CPR Practice Direction 6-B Para 3.1(9)(a<\/em>), regarded as obiter dicta.<\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal[13]<\/a> unanimously upheld direct damage suffered by the claimant to be outside tort gateway however, the loss of dependency claim was well within its confines.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court[14]<\/a> opined that Lady Brownlie stumbled on the first aspect to provide the prerequisites of service out as first defendant, the non-trading holding company were neither owners nor operated the Cairo Hotel.<\/p>\n

The interpretation of the \u201ctort gateway\u201d <\/em>as per Practice Direction 6-B, Para 3.1(9)(a<\/em>) is divided in the ratio of 3:2.<\/p>\n

The majority opinion concluded upon the ordinary and natural meaning of gateway, to include, \u201call detriment, physical, financial and social, which the plaintiff suffers as a result of the tortious conduct of the defendant\u201d. The Court opined that despite personal injury and death of Sir Brownlie in Egypt, the consequential damage (funeral and medical expenses, pain, suffering and loss of amenity) were suffered in England.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em>It is my view that the majority opinion has adopted a very wide approach in determining the gateway to test damage suffered to serve out. Any event occurring in England sans \u201csignificant damage\u201d will not hold good to prove forum conveniens. <\/em>It has trodden away from \u201cdirect damage\u201d[15]<\/a> since the applied gateway only mentioned \u201cdamage\u201d. No differentiation of direct and indirect\/consequential damage is clear in the absence of lucid and precise meaning of the gateway being provided, leading to an unreliable test. This wide approach poses a risk of opening floodgates to many applications to serve out of the jurisdiction, by interfering with the sovereignty of another State. The required cautious approach is not being exercised by the UK jurisdiction, leaving the concept of damage open to questions since the Court has not discarded it by clearly defining the boundaries of tort gateway. The opinion of rejecting the consistency between the gateway and Brussels I Regime is however a test for if the history behind the draft of the gateway is being correctly applied.<\/p>\n

I agree with the minority view to the extent of supporting restrictive application of \u201cdamage\u201d as personal injury. However, the universal jurisdiction of English courts on tort claims suffered anywhere is vague.<\/p>\n

V. Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Through the majority view, whether expansive interpretation by English courts of tort gateways should be abandoned or that ambiguity can be removed if the meaning is brought within the scope of the interpretation under Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation for achieving certainty in a situation gripped with the conflict of laws. It is also hard to conclude the approach which the courts will finally adopt in order to attain a balance in the situation of the claimant and defendant considering if the test of forum conveniens <\/em>is applicable.<\/em> It can be said that the Supreme Court missed the bus for determining scope of jurisdiction \u2013 service out in tortious claims.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>* <\/em>BA LLB (Hons.) Amity Law School, Delhi, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi (Batch of 2019).<\/span><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> (2018) 1 WLR 192 <\/a><\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Ibid.<\/em><\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> (2018) 1 WLR 192 <\/a><\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> R. 6.36, Civil Procedure Rules.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Seaconsar (Far East) Ltd. <\/em>v. Bank Markazi Jomhouri Islami Iran<\/em>, (1994) 1 AC 438 : (1993) 3 WLR 756 HL(E) (Seaconsar)<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> (2018) 1 WLR 192<\/a>; R. 6.37, Civil Procedure Rules.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Lord Collins of Mapesbury et al., Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws<\/em>, 15th Edn., Sweet & Maxwell,\u00a0\u00a0 2012.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> R. 6.37, Civil Procedure Rules, UK.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> 1987 AC 460 : (1986) 3 WLR 972 HL(E)<\/a><\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> (2018) 1 WLR 192 <\/a><\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Booth <\/em>v. Phillips<\/em>, (2004) 1 WLR 3292: \u00a02004 EWHC 1437 (Comm)<\/a><\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> [2015] EWCA Civ 379; [2015] 1 CLC 706, CA<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Brownlie <\/em>v. Four Seasons Holdings Inc<\/em>., (2016) 1 WLR 1814<\/a><\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> (2018) 1 WLR 192 <\/a><\/p>\n

[15]<\/a>Dumez France SA <\/em>v. Hessische Landesbank<\/em>, (Case C-220\/88) ,1990 ECR I-49; Marinari <\/em>v. Lloyds Bank Plc.<\/em>, 1996 QB 217 : (1996) 2 WLR 159\u00a0<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Tanvi Nigam*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":56741,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[44982,2554,29785,44983],"class_list":["post-243011","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-case-comment","tag-Jurisdiction","tag-law","tag-tortious-claims"],"yoast_head":"\nCase Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"by Tanvi Nigam*\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-01-29T12:25:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-01-29T14:50:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1260\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"827\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/\",\"name\":\"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-01-29T12:25:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-01-29T14:50:46+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg\",\"width\":1260,\"height\":827},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision","og_description":"by Tanvi Nigam*","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-01-29T12:25:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-01-29T14:50:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1260,"height":827,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/","name":"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","datePublished":"2021-01-29T12:25:49+00:00","dateModified":"2021-01-29T14:50:46+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","width":1260,"height":827},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/29\/case-comment-on-four-seasons-holdings-inc-v-brownlie-a-uk-supreme-court-decision\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Comment on Four Seasons Holdings Inc. v. Brownlie \u2014 A UK Supreme Court Decision"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/07\/DSC_7472-2-e1476682323502.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":330221,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/06\/motor-accident-compensation-ownership-definition-not-limited-context-control-of-vehicle-important-supreme-court-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":243011,"position":0},"title":"\u2018Ownership\u2019 not limited to categories specified in Section 2(30) of MV Act; Context around control of vehicle important to fix liability: SC","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The issue in the instant case revolved around whether a dealer or the manufacturer can be construed as an \u2018owner\u2019 vis-a-vis fixation of tortious liability for payment of compensation, especially when the driver and deceased both were employees of the manufacturer.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"vehicle owner motor accident compensation liability","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/vehicle-owner-motor-accident-compensation-liability.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/vehicle-owner-motor-accident-compensation-liability.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/vehicle-owner-motor-accident-compensation-liability.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/vehicle-owner-motor-accident-compensation-liability.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372502,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/13\/bombay-hc-quashes-arbitral-award-four-year-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":243011,"position":1},"title":"Bombay High Court quashes arbitral award rendered in undue haste after four-year delay and absence of hearing","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 13, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Arbitrator has clearly misconducted by citing the pretext of non-existent Covid-19 restrictions for his own inefficiency, but hurriedly making the award when lockdown restrictions actually existed.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"arbitral award after four-year delay","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/arbitral-award-after-four-year-delay.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/arbitral-award-after-four-year-delay.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/arbitral-award-after-four-year-delay.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/arbitral-award-after-four-year-delay.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":313113,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/05\/dhc-grants-anti-arbitration-injunction-in-an-international-commercial-arbitration-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":243011,"position":2},"title":"Delhi High Court grants anti-arbitration injunction in an international commercial arbitration","author":"Simranjeet","date":"February 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cIt needs no re-articulation that one of the cardinal principles of arbitration is, that since arbitration is a remedy that is founded on consent of parties, the agreed procedure for appointment of an arbitrator must be scrupulously followed. However, the same is not done in the present case.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"delhi high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/10\/delhi-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312617,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/01\/maintainability-of-a-letters-patent-appeal-rectification-application-section-57-trade-marks-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":243011,"position":3},"title":"Maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal Against an Order of the Single Judge Concerning a Rectification Application Filed under Section 57, Trade Marks Act, 1999","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 1, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"by Aditya Rajagopal\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"letters patent appeal","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/letters-patent-appeal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/letters-patent-appeal.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/letters-patent-appeal.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/letters-patent-appeal.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":312055,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/24\/hero-investcorp-v-r-holdings-sc-refuses-interference-delhi-hc-stay-order-trade-mark-rectification\/","url_meta":{"origin":243011,"position":4},"title":"Hero Investcorp v. V.R. Holdings | Supreme Court refuses to interfere with Delhi HC\u2019s stay in Trade Mark rectification matter","author":"Ridhi","date":"January 24, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Division Bench of Delhi High Court had stayed the order in V.R. Holdings v. Hero Investcorp Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1380.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Trade mark rectification","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Trade-mark-rectification.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Trade-mark-rectification.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Trade-mark-rectification.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/Trade-mark-rectification.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":357020,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/19\/jhar-hc-on-bit-msera-dalit-student-death-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":243011,"position":5},"title":"\u2018University authorities cannot play with life of students\u2019; Jharkhand HC orders BIT MESRA to pay Rs 20 Lakhs in dalit student death case","author":"Editor","date":"August 19, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The College Administration has taken a very casual approach and has not paid any heed to the physical conditions and injuries sustained by the deceased-student. Had they treated him at the earliest by admitting him to a good, reputable hospital either in RIMS, Ranchi or at any private Hospital in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"BIT MSERA dalit student death case","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Chhattisgarh-City-Buses-ceasing-operation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Chhattisgarh-City-Buses-ceasing-operation.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Chhattisgarh-City-Buses-ceasing-operation.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Chhattisgarh-City-Buses-ceasing-operation.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243011","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=243011"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/243011\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/56741"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=243011"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=243011"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=243011"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}