‘The competition watchdog has imposed a £17.9m fine on price comparison site Comparethemarket.com after it found that clauses in its contracts with home insurers broke competition law.’
The Guardian, 19th November 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Claimant personal injury lawyers have turned to the Lord Chief Justice to support an urgent review of the government’s proposed tariff of damages for next April’s whiplash reforms.’
Legal Futures, 18th November 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘The coronavirus pandemic has led to ongoing widespread business disruption and closures with a second national lockdown commencing this week. As such, certainty over whether business can bring claims under their business interruption (“BI”) insurance policies could not be more important.’
12 King's Bench Walk, 2nd November 2020
Source: www.12kbw.co.uk
‘Eight months since the UK coronavirus lockdown forced the temporary closures of restaurants, bars, shops, hairdressers and other small businesses, thousands who are still awaiting payouts from their insurers to cover lost income will hope a supreme court hearing will result in a ruling that favours about 200,000 policyholders.’
The Guardian, 16th November 2020
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘The High Court has refused to aggregate as one claim various actions a Yorkshire law firm’s indemnity insurer is facing because of a multi-million pound fraud run by one of its partners.’
Legal Futures, 4th November 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Where the law governing a contract containing an arbitration agreement differs from the law of the nominated “seat” of the arbitration, which law – absent any express choice – governs the arbitration agreement itself? That was the question that the Supreme Court had to grapple with in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v. OOO Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38, in which judgment was handed down on 9 October 2020. George Spalton and Ian McDonald of 4 New Square consider the decision.’
4 New Square, 14th October 2020
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The High Court in Financial Conduct Authority v Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd [2020] EWHC 2448 (Comm) have provided much needed guidance on business interruption insurance. Within the judgment was analysis on the law of causation for insurance policies. The decision may be perceived as, at best, widening the approach when undertaking the “but for” test, or at least providing much needed clarity to the test.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 6th October 2020
Source: hardwicke.co.uk
‘In Rashid v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [2020] EWHC 2522 (QB) the High Court (Lavender J) has allowed an appeal against a Recorder’s decision to dismiss a general practitioner’s claim for wrongful arrest, on the basis that the officers involved lacked reasonable grounds for believing the arrest was necessary. It follows recent cases in articulating a higher bar for the police to show reasonable grounds for necessity to arrest than perhaps had been thought to apply. It also raises interesting arguments about whether any other defences, such as the “Lumba/Parker” issue or ex turpi causa (the defence of illegality) might be available where an arrest has been unlawful.’
UK Police Law Blog, 27th October 2020
Source: ukpolicelawblog.com
‘This article considers some of the particular aspects in the recent Supreme Court decision of Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi v OOO Insurance Company Chubb & Others [2020] UKSC 38. In particular it looks at the significance of the distinction between implication of agreement through application of ordinary contractual principles and imputation of terms by the application of conflict of law provisions contained in the Rome I Regulation or as established by the common law.’
Six Pump Court, 20th October 2020
Source: www.6pumpcourt.co.uk
‘The collapse in new motor injury claims seen during lockdown continued in the following three months, despite more cars returning to the road.’
Litigation Futures, 20th October 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The central issue on this appeal is how the governing law of an arbitration agreement is to be determined when the law applicable to the contract containing it differs from the law of the “seat” of the arbitration, the place chosen for the arbitration in the arbitration agreement.’
UKSC Blog, 9th October 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Hot on the heels of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical) Ltd, in what may be the first summary judgment to enforce an adjudicator’s decision in favour of a party in administration, we have successfully represented the claimant in Styles and Wood Ltd (in administration) (S&W) v GE CIF Trustees Ltd.’
Practical Law: Construction Blog, 1st October 2020
‘A law firm at the forefront of the business interruption insurance test case has described insurers’ decision to appeal the High Court ruling as “disgraceful”.’
Litigation Futures, 5th October 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A solicitor who used £100,000 from a client’s estate to pay debts to HM Revenue & Customs and an indemnity insurer before closing his firm has been struck off.’
Legal Futures, 16th September 2020
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
‘Lawyers are already predicting a leapfrogged appeal to the Supreme Court after the High Court handed down its ruling in the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) business interruption insurance test case.’
Litigation Futures, 15th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Judges ruled that the disease clauses in some business interruption policies should have meant they were covered.’
BBC News, 15th September 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The number of motor insurance claims notified to insurers in the second quarter of 2020 fell by nearly half, but their value leapt by 31%, according to the Association of British Insurers (ABI).’
Litigation Futures, 4th September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘A defendant’s potential exposure to paying the premium for after-the-event (ATE) insurance necessary to meet its demand for security for costs was “not relevant” to the question of security, the High Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 1st September 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘On appeal, a High Court judge reversed the finding that a claimant was not fundamentally dishonest due to inconsistencies in the longevity of his injuries and the non-disclosure of a subsequent road traffic accident to a medical expert (“the deafening silences”). On this basis, the claimant was found to be fundamentally dishonest pursuant to s.57 Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and was consequently ordered to pay 70% of the defendant insurer’s costs. Matthew Smith, co-founder of the PSQB fraud team, was instructed on behalf of the successful appellant insurer.’
Park Square Barristers, 3rd August 2020
Source: www.parksquarebarristers.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025