COMMITTERI V CLUB MEDITERRANEE SA AND ANOTHER

[2016] EWHC 1510 (QB), High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, Mr Justice Dingemans, 30 June 2016

Conflicts of law - Choice of law - Whether claim contractual or non-contractual in nature - Whether Rome I or II applicable – Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 ("Rome I") - Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 ("Rome II")

On 18 February 2011 the claimant Mr C was climbing an ice wall in Chamonix, France. He slipped and fell causing injuries to his foot and ankle. C was in France on a team-building exercise organised by his employer, BNP, by a contract with the travel organiser Club Med which contained an English law and jurisdiction clause. This was C's claim against Club Med and its insurer, Generali. The success of the claim depended on which country's law applied. The choice of law depended on whether C's claim was contractual in nature and governed by Rome I or non-contractual in nature and governed by Rome II. Under French law, it was common ground that C was entitled to damages. Under English law, his claim would fail, although in each country the applicable law was an instrument implementing the EU Package Travel Directive. The Directive had been transposed into French law by a Code containing a provision stipulating that legal entities organising travel were liable for the proper performance of the contract, which meant strict liability under French law. The issue was therefore whether the liability of Club Med was contractual or non-contractual.