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

Lloyd's not a "public officer" for the purposes of misfeasance in public office

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • November 29 2007

In another chapter of the long-running Lloyd's Names litigation, the Court of Appeal confirmed that Lloyd's does not have the requisite characteristics to be a "public officer" for the purposes of the tort of misfeasance in public office

General counsel update

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • China, European Union, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mongolia, Singapore, United Kingdom, USA
  • -
  • July 11 2012

This is the thirtieth in our series of general counsel updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas

Preventing double recovery: payments by a local authority towards the care costs of a personal injury claimant are relevant when assessing loss

  • Kennedys Law LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • April 11 2007

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal in Andre Crofton v NHS Litigation Authority will be warmly welcomed by defendant insurers as it should significantly reduce their damages bill

FOIA High Court decision on disclosure of confidential information by a regulator

  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • July 17 2009

In Financial Services Authority v Information Commissioner 2009 EWHC 1548 (Admin) the High Court considered whether information requested from the FSA under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("FOIA") was protected from disclosure by virtue of the provisions on confidential information in s.348 Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA"

Civil litigation costs: sousa vs london borough of waltham forest council

  • Fenwick Elliott Solicitors
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • June 7 2011

Trees for which the London Borough of Waltham Forest Council (the "council") was responsible caused damage to Mr Sousa's property as a result of their roots encroaching from the pavement outside

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

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