The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association – Forces Help & Anor v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29

A child born at a German hospital to a British Army family suffered brain injury allegedly due to negligence. The defendants sought contribution from the hospital under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978. The Supreme Court held the Act does not have overriding effect and applies only when English choice of law rules indicate English law governs the contribution claim.

Facts

On 14 June 2000, the claimant Harry Roberts was born at a hospital in Viersen, Germany, operated by the appellant (Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH). His father was stationed with UK armed forces in Germany. The claimant alleged he suffered an acute hypoxic brain injury due to negligence by the attending midwife, who was employed by the first defendant (SSAFA). The defendants brought contribution proceedings against the hospital under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.

It was common ground that the claimant’s claim against the defendants and any liability of the hospital to the claimant were governed by German law. The parties agreed that if German law applied to the contribution claim, the limitation period had expired.

Issues

The central issue was whether the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 has mandatory or overriding effect, applying automatically to all contribution claims in England and Wales regardless of choice of law rules, or whether it applies only when domestic choice of law rules indicate that English law governs the contribution claim.

Subsidiary Issues

Whether the provisions of sections 1(6), 2(3)(c), and 7(3) of the 1978 Act indicated Parliament’s intention to give the Act overriding effect.

Judgment

The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, holding that the 1978 Act does not have overriding effect.

Lord Lloyd-Jones, delivering the judgment of the court, held that the correct starting point is the identification of the appropriate law by application of domestic choice of law rules. The provisions relied upon by the lower courts were equivocal and did not indicate that the statute was intended to have overriding effect.

The ordinary and natural meaning of the provisions of the 1978 Act and the scheme of the legislation provide little assistance on the issue as to whether it is intended to have overriding effect. The Act contains no express provision that it applies regardless of the law otherwise applicable to the contribution claim.

Lord Lloyd-Jones rejected the view that where underlying liabilities are governed by foreign law, the chances of English law governing the contribution claim would be ‘small to the point of invisibility’. He emphasised that contribution claims may be governed by English law where there exists a special relationship between the parties seeking and from whom contribution is sought.

I can see no good reason why Parliament should have intended to give overriding effect to the 1978 Act. Why should Parliament have intended to confer a statutory right of contribution whenever the party from whom contribution is sought can be brought before a court in this jurisdiction, and regardless of the law with which the contribution claim has its closest connection?

The court distinguished this case from situations where legislation regulates activities outside the jurisdiction, noting this concerned which law should be applied in resolving disputes before English courts.

Implications

This decision clarifies that the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 is not an overriding mandatory rule. Contribution claims in England and Wales are subject to conventional choice of law analysis, and the 1978 Act applies only where choice of law rules indicate English law governs the contribution claim.

The judgment has significant practical implications for multi-party litigation involving foreign elements, particularly in personal injury and professional negligence cases. Parties must now consider whether their contribution claims will be governed by foreign law and whether foreign limitation periods may bar such claims.

The decision also provides important guidance on the approach to determining whether statutes have overriding effect, emphasising that such effect cannot be implied merely from provisions acknowledging the relevance of private international law.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 does not have mandatory or overriding effect and does not apply automatically to all contribution proceedings in England and Wales. German law applied to the defendants’ contribution claims against the hospital, and those claims were time-barred.

Source: The Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association – Forces Help & Anor v Allgemeines Krankenhaus Viersen GmbH [2022] UKSC 29