Risk, Re-/Insurance and Future Thinking
From the category archives:
We won the second phase of our case for RMP against Brent LBC, Harrow LBC and LAML today.
Here is the Press Release. As before, I hope to put up a more comprehensive guide to what the judgment means shortly.
London Mutuals Case: Local Authorities Cannot Sidestep EU Procurement Process
Another resounding victory for Risk Management Partners [...]
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
On April 22nd 2008 Lord Justice Stanley Burnton handed down his judgment in R (on the application of Risk Management Partners) –v– the Council of the London Borough of Brent [2008] EWHC 692 (Admin).
LAML, who were an interested party in the case, say that the court threw “out claims from the private sector that councils [...]
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
I just had a big win on a case of major importance in its field. Here is the press release. A more detailed analysis will follow:
Local authorities not authorised to act as insurers
In a landmark case, the High Court has found that Brent LBC had no power to participate in LAML, a mutual insurer [...]
{ 1 comment }
Reinsurance assets will more easily be accessible to foreign liquidators in multinational insolvency proceedings following the House of Lords’ decision last week in the long-running HIH saga.
Their Lordships found that English courts should co-operate “as much as possible” to ensure that the assets of bankrupt companies based abroad are distributed among creditors under a single [...]
{ 0 comments }
In the recent case of Expandable Ltd. v. Rubin, the Court of Appeal has held that mere mention of a letter does not automatically waive legal professional privilege.
The judgment, given by Rix LJ, went to two points. First, had the letter been “mentioned” for the purposes of CPR 31.14; second, if it was so [...]
{ Comments on this entry are closed }
I’ve just skim-read the judgment in Equitas v. Horace Holman [2007] EWHC 903. It runs to 108 paragraphs and is the culmination of proceedings that lasted 5 years. The finding?
>I conclude that Equitas’ money claim succeeds in the sums of US$ 34,614.01 and £3,018.57. I shall hear further submissions if Equitas wish to [...]
{ 1 comment }
Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefalas.
CA (Civ Div). 17 May 2007
Sanctions under an ‘unless’ order take effect without the need for any further order in the event of non-compliance in any material way. The other party does not need to apply to the court for the sanction to be imposed. Rather, the party in default [...]
{ 0 comments }
Arbory Group Ltd v West Craven[1] Insurance Services. QBD (Leeds). 13 March 2007
A company that had been underinsured for business interruption as a result of an insurance broker’s negligent advice was entitled to recover a shortfall in payment and damages for loss of profits. The duty of the insurance broker, in the circumstances, was to [...]
{ 0 comments }
In Gray v Fire Alarm Fabrication Services Ltd. (decided on 10 November, and reported in the Times today) the Court of Appeal held that if a contractor had the right to supervise the work of a sub-contractor so as to ensure that it was carried out safely, then it was also under a duty of [...]
{ 0 comments }
Lloyd’s Names have lost a legal challenge against the Treasury over claims that successive governments had failed properly to implement an EU insurance directive dealing with insurance risk, which would have brought to light substantial additional syndicate liabilities
The High Court held, first, that the directive had not given the Names the necessary rights to allow [...]
{ 0 comments }
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.
