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.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results: 1-10 of 771

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


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


Indemnity costs
  • Mills & Reeve LLP
  • United Kingdom
  • March 26 2010

Henry Webster was attacked at school in 2007


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


General Counsel Update - June 2013 - A summary of major developments in key areas
  • Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
  • Australia, European Union, Singapore, United Kingdom, USA
  • June 21 2013

The Companies Act 2006 (Strategic Report and Directors' Report) Regulations 2013 (Regulations) to amend the structure of UK annual reports have


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


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


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


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


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