Reinsurers declined liability on the basis of non-compliance with a Notification of Loss / Claims Co-operation clause. Reinsurers provided cover for two separate excess of loss layers over the retention for securities’ liabilities on the underlying D&O policy. Where the clause required notification of “loss or losses” that would not be construed to mean “alleged loss or losses”. For the same reasoning in Royal & Sun Alliance Plc v Dornoch [2005] 1 LLR IR 544, the “loss or losses” referred to the ...
|
A notice served by a tenant on the landlords was invalid in that not less than 3 months notice had to be given. The wrong date for expiry had been given and the court held that the reasonable recipient would have not known when the notice was due to expire.
|
The fact that a draft agreement included a jurisdiction clause could not be evidence that the parties had agreed on that jurisdiction, since at the time of the draft agreement many fundamental matters remained to be resolved and there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that the clause itself was ever discussed and agreed in meetings, emails or telephone calls.
|
While a judge had acted improperly in making excessive interventions in the course of a trial, his conduct had not been such as to render the trial unfair and there was no reason to suppose there was a real possibility that he was biased.
|
When justices were considering whether to issue a summons for a private prosecution after the CPS had brought but discontinued proceedings arising out of the same events, they should not require that special circumstances, in the sense of new evidence or statements, be shown before agreeing to issue a summons.
|
The Parole Board Rules 2004 r.19(2) and (3) gave the Parole Board the power to exclude a prisoner from part of a hearing whilst evidence was being taken from a vulnerable witness.
|
The FSA imposed a financial penalty on the Kyte Group of £250,000 for breaches of the systems and controls requirement with respect to the client money process.
|
An option agreement did not clearly identify the land but an agreed plan appended to the agreement did.There was sufficient certainty in the agreement for it not to be void and for specific performance of the agreement to be granted.
|
On an application for a certificate of inadequacy in relation to a drug trafficking confiscation order, a court could only look at post-confiscation order events; it was not entitled to go behind the Crown Court judge’s findings as to D’s realisable assets.
|
The court had the power under the Rules of the Supreme Court 1978 (Bahamas) Ord.18 r.19(1)(a) to strike out a claim made under Art.28 of the Constitution regardless of the fact that such a claim was not available at common law.
|
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... |