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

Local authority's participation in mutual insurer questioned

  • Locke Lord LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 8 2008

The English High Court recently considered whether a local authority in London, the London Borough of Brent (Brent), was empowered to set up, with other London authorities, a mutual insurance company, the London Authorities Mutual Limited (LAML

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

Local authorities' powers

  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • -
  • United Kingdom
  • -
  • May 31 2008

In this case the claimant company applied for judicial review on the grounds that the participation of the defendant local authority in a new mutual insurance company (London Authorities Mutual Limited) was outside its powers or not duly authorised

Court considers meaning of "damages"

  • Locke Lord 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

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

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

Court of Appeal ends local authorities' insurance venture

  • Locke Lord 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

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"