We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 21

AXA General Insurance Limited and others v The Lord Advocate and others

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • October 14 2011

The Supreme Court recently released its judgment in the case of AXA General Insurance Limited and others v The Lord Advocate and others

Coverage under a public liability insurance policy: taking a commercial approach

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 15 2008

The judgment of Mr Justice Walker in Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable 2008 EWHC 1375 (Comm) provides guidance on the interpretation of and liabilities covered under public liability insurance policies

Riotous assembly?

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 19 2013

Under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886 (the “1886 Act”), the police are strictly liable to compensate persons who have sustained loss and damage to

Local government powers and procurement: RMP v Brent

  • Shepherd & Wedderburn LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 2 2008

On 16 May 2008, the High Court in London delivered the second part of a double legal blow to the London Borough of Brent (Brent) in relation to its attempts to establish an 'in house' mutual insurance company and to purchase insurance from it

Financial institutions e-briefing: insurance update: 911 attack on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center: 1 attack or 2?

  • Eversheds LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 28 2013

The issue of whether the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers on 11 September 2001 was one attack or two was considered by an English Court for the

Surveillance and human rights

  • Kennedys Law LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • September 4 2009

Most readers will know of at least one instance where surveillance has been of crucial importance when defending either a fraudulent or grossly exaggerated insurance claim

Government confirms ECJ gender ruling will apply only to new contracts entered into after 21 December 2012

  • Hogan Lovells
  • -
  • European Union, United Kingdom
  • -
  • August 16 2011

On 1 March 2011 the European Court of Justice issued its judgment in the Test-Achats case, ruling that gender based pricing in contracts of insurance is a contravention of EU law and that from 21 December 2012 insurers will be obliged to apply unisex premiums and benefits

Court considers meaning of "damages"

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 2 2008

In Bedfordshire Police Authority (BPA) v. David Constable (sued on his own behalf and on behalf of all other members of Syndicate 386 at Lloyd's) (the Syndicate) 2008 EWHC 1375, BPA sought a declaration that the Syndicate be liable to indemnify it in respect of BPA's potential liability under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886

The Supreme Court rules that the public procurement regulations do not prevent public authorities from acquiring shared services from an entity which they jointly control

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • February 25 2011

In Brent LBC and others v Risk Management Partners Ltd, the Supreme Court ruled that local authorities in London did not infringe public procurement law when they purchased insurance services directly from a company which they jointly owned and controlled

Court of Appeal ends local authorities' insurance venture

  • Edwards Wildman Palmer LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 2 2009

In 'Brent London Borough Council (Appellant) v Risk Management Partners Ltd. (Respondent) & (1) London Authorities Mutual Ltd. (2) Harrow London Borough Council (Interested Parties) (2009)' EWCA Civ 490 the Court of Appeal held that the actions of Brent London Borough Council (Brent), specifically in relation to its decision to abandon a tender process for insurance cover in favour of a mutual insurer in which it was a participating member, were beyond the authority granted to it by Parliament