Most recent case entries

In Re: Sean Quinn 10/1/12

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:35:35 GMT

The bankruptcy of Sean Quin, the founder of Quinn Insurance was annulled on the basis that he had failed to disclose that he held an Irish passport and was a registered voter in the Republic of Ireland where he paid 20% of his taxes. This will permit his creditors to pursue him for debts alleged to be owed including Anglo Irish Bank which is claiming more than €2 billion.

Delaney v Pickett and Tradewise Insurance Services (CA) 21/12/11

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:34:29 GMT

A car passenger could not claim under the Motor Insurers' Bureau Agreement after he had been injured while in possession of cannabis with an intent to supply, as the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of a crime within cl. 6 (1) (e) (iii) of the Agreement and "crime" was not restricted to "serious crime".

Starlight Shipping v Allianz Marine & Aviation (Comm) 19/12/11

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:32:34 GMT

The terms of a settlement agreement in a Tomlin order could be enforced without lifting the stay and without the need to issue fresh proceedings. The decision of the Court of Appeal in Hollingsworth v Humphrey did not address declarations, specific performance or damages other than under contract. Whether its impact was limited to the RSC and did not apply to the CPR did not need to be determined.

Thewlis v Groupama Insurance Co Ltd (TCC) 5/1/12

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:31:39 GMT

Following a claim under a household insurance policy in respect of subsidence damage the homeowner made an offer to settle before issuing proceedings. The letter stated that the offer was made pursuant to Part 36 and remained open for acceptance for 21 days after which it could only be accepted if costs were agreed or the court gave permission. The offer was not accepted within the 21 day period and proceedings were issued. Five months later insurers purported to accept the offer. The homeowner denied that insurers could because in reality the offer was not a Part 36 offer because it did not comply with all the requirements of Part 36. The Court held that a failure of the letter to comply with the requirement under CPR 36.3 was fatal and because it was unclear that the intention of the homeowner was that the offer should have the consequences of the new Part 36 regime introduced in April 2007 on its proper construction the offer was not open for acceptance by insurers after 21 days.

Teal Ass. Co. Limited v W.R.Berkley Ins. (Europe) Limited & Anr (CA) 15/12/11

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:22:40 GMT

The Black and Veatch insurance programme consisted of a tower of insurance contracts providing it with worldwide cover for any one claim (and in annual aggregate) of US$60 million in excess of the deductible and self insured retention. The first layer was written by Lexington Insurance. Above this were three further layers of excess of loss insurance written by Black and Veatch's captive insurer Teal. There was then a 'top and drop' policy for an additional cover of up to £10 million per claim once the tower was exhausted. This too was underwritten by Teal and reinsured with the Defendants. The 'top and drop' was limited to non-US claims whereas the tower provided worldwide cover. Teal contended that on the proper construction of the various excess of loss and the 'top and drop' policy was that each level would only be affected when the relevant insurer either accepted liability or was held liable by judgment following the Post Office v Norwich Union Insurance principles. This would allow Teal in effect to s elect the order of claims it put forward to ensure that the American claims used up the tower cover and the non-American claims were reserved for the 'top and drop' policy and then for reinsurers. The Court of Appeal held that once Lexington as first layer insurer was liable then the other layers of insurance would be impacted in an orderly fashion. This was the proper commercial construction of the contracts applying Rainy Sky v Kookmin.

Liberty Insurance PTE Ltd & Anr v Argo Systems FZE (CA) 15/12/11

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:21:36 GMT

Insurers were not estopped from raising a new allegation of breach of warranty some 7 years after the original letter of declinature and where proceedings had already taken place against brokers. At no stage did the insurers' correspondence or conduct give rise individually or cumulatively the essential unequivocal representation required for estoppel by representation.

Interim Injunctions and Freezing Orders - 21/12/11

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:18:31 GMT

The FSA published a press release announcing it had secured interim injunctions and freezing orders at the High Court against nine firms, including St Clair Estates Ltd, OFG Investments Ltd, Option Land UK Ltd, and GIG Properties Ltd. The injunctions prohibit the firms from selling plots of land on a specific site at Winkleigh Airfield in Devon pending further investigation by the FSA. The FSA suspects the firms were running a land banking operation which amounted to an unauthorised collective investment scheme and has frozen approximately £850,000 that is believed to have come from customer investments in plots of land marketed by the firms. The FSA does not regulate land as an investment, but operating a collective investment scheme without being authorised or exempt is a breach of the general prohibition in section 19 of FSMA.

FSA v Sidhu 15/12/11

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:17:54 GMT

Mr Sidhu, a management consultant, has been found guilty at Southwark Crown Court of 22 counts of insider dealing. He has been sentenced to two years' imprisonment. The FSA brought the case against Mr Sidhu and announced in February 2011 that he had been charged. The offences were committed between 15 May 2009 and 22 August 2009.

FSA v Ahuja 14/12/11

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:16:55 GMT

Mr Ahuja, a former UBS client adviser has been banned and fined £150,000 by the FSA for failing to act with integrity, in breach of Principle 1 of the Statements of Principle and for not being a fit and proper person. Mr Ahuja has also been prohibited from performing any function in relation to any regulated activity in the financial services industry. Mr Ahuja was a client adviser within UBS' international wealth management business in London. Between 1 January 2006 and 30 January 2008 he used a pre-existing investment structure to enable a customer who was resident in India to invest in Indian securities through an investment fund incorporated in Mauritius. The customer ultimately invested over US$250 million in the fund. This was in breach of Indian law and in clear contravention of UBS guidelines. Subsequently, Mr Ahuja took steps to conceal the true nature of the customer's investment, by deliberately and repeatedly providing false and misleading information to the legal and compliance department of UB S. He also assisted in making unauthorised redemption payments out of the fund when he knew, among other things, that the redemptions were not properly authorised by the customer and were in breach of UBS compliance rules.

Complaints Commissioner v FSA 5/1/12

Thu, 02 Feb 2012 20:16:12 GMT

The Complaints Commissioner rejected a complaint brought against the FSA on 3 September 2011 regarding the findings of the FSA's Unfair Contract Terms Team. The commissioner was satisfied that the FSA had conducted an extensive investigation into whether the terms of an agreement between Firm A and Firm B were unfair and took a course of action which appeared appropriate and reasonable in all the circumstances.

In a second complaint on 12 September 2011 regarding the late submission of an administration fee imposed on Firm A for not waiving the fee. The complaint was rejected. In a third complaint about possibly contradictory or misleading statements on two FSA web-pages, the Commission upheld the complaint and required the FSA to apologise for failing to address all of the issues of the complainant and correcting the documents, to make an ex gratia payment of £50 to the complainant; to review the publication entitled "Bank accounts - Know your rights" and to make certain amendments.