In the matter of Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited and another (Appellants) v Financial Services Authority (Respondent) – Supreme Court
Supreme Court, 13th February 2013
Supreme Court, 13th February 2013
“FOCUS: The decision by the Supreme Court last month that legal professional privilege would not apply to advice from non-lawyers confirms how important it is for insurers to maximise the value of legal privilege.”
OUT-LAW.com, 13th February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
“A specialist team created to crackdown on bad practice in the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) claims market has helped tackle more than 200 rogue firms and is being strengthened to monitor even more companies.”
Ministry of Justice, 8th February 2013
Source: www.justice.gov.uk
“A professional indemnity (PI) insurer was wrong to reject a law firm’s blanket notification of possible claims, the High Court has decided in what is believed to be the first ruling of its kind.”
Legal Futures, 5th February 2013
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
“The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is investigating whether consumers are
getting a ‘fair dea’ when purchasing annuities, it has announced.”
OUT-LAW.com, 4th February 2013
Source: www.out-law.com
Milton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty, decd and others [2013] EWCA Civ 15; [2013] WLR (D) 25
“There was no rule of law that if the only other possible causes of an event were very much less likely than one suggested means of causation, that became the probable cause; the court had to be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred was stronger than the case for not so believing.”
WLR Daily, 24th January 2013
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“A widow whose husband was killed as he walked home from his local pub is to campaign for a change in the law after a banned driver dubbed ‘an absolute menace on the roads’ was jailed for only 18 months today for causing his death.”
Daily Telegraph, 23rd January 2013
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“A topical debate is the extent to which solicitors acting for mortgage lenders (or more precisely, their professional indemnity insurers) should bear the consequences of mortgage fraud.”
Hardwicke Chambers, 10th January 2013
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
“The financial sector will no longer be allowed to use gender as a determining factor in the assessment of risk and therefore the price of premiums and benefits from Friday 21 December 2012.”
Full story (PDF)
Cloisters, 19th December 2012
Source: www.cloisters.com
“Members of the public faced with the prospect of bringing a claim for defamation
or breach of privacy against a large media organisation will in the future be
protected against having to pay the other side’s costs if the case is lost, the
Government has announced.”
OUT-LAW.com, 20th December 2012
Source: www.out-law.com
“Male pensioners will lose up to £10,000 in retirement income due to the
introduction this week of European Court rules banning sex discrimination by
financial firms, a report warns.”
Daily Telegraph, 20th December 2012
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
“Women who take out car or life insurance could find themselves paying as much as £500 more when an EU ruling on gender comes into force on Friday.”
The Guardian, 17th December 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The family of a young woman is suing the country’s biggest out-of-hours GP provider and one of its nurses, whose failures meant her fatal condition was not diagnosed, because neither will accept liability in a test case over legal responsibility in a privatised NHS.”
The Guardian, 17th December 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“A legal expenses insurer could seek to limit the level of costs and expenses payable under an insurance policy in respect of a solicitor’s services for which it was liable to the insured provided that the freedom to choose a lawyer guaranteed by Council Directive 87/344/EEC, as transposed into English law by regulation 6 of the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, was not rendered meaningless.”
WLR Daily, 12th December 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Legal expenses insurers have welcomed this week’s Court of Appeal ruling about the rates they have to pay non-panel firms.”
Litigation Futures, 14th December 2012
Source: www.legalfutures.co.uk
“Controversy still rages over whether the Jackson reforms are a coherent set of proposals that will rebalance a system where claims and costs are out of control, or if they represent an assault on access to justice for people whom ‘no win, no fee’ represents the only hope of redress for a wrong inflicted on them.”
Law Society’s Gazette, 13th December 2012
Source: www.lawgazette.gov.uk
Light on Line Ltd v Zumtobel Lighting Ltd [2012] EWHC 3376 (QB); [2012] WLR (D) 373
“Service of a redacted insurance certificate as proof of “the amount of the premium paid or payable” in a claim for an additional liability on a detailed assessment of costs was sufficient to comply with paragraph 32.5(2)(c) of the Costs Practice Direction supplementing CPR Pts 43–48.”
WLR Daily, 29th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
“Complaints about a company based in India which sent text messages about reclaiming payment protection insurance (PPI) and compensation for accidents have been upheld by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).”
The Guardian, 12th December 2012
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
“The High Court has overturned a cost judge’s ruling that a redacted after-the-event (ATE) insurance certificate did not comply with the Costs Practice Direction (CPD) because it did not show what premiums would have been payable had the case concluded earlier than it did.”
Litigation Futures, 6th December 2012
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
Gothaer Allgemeine Versicherung AG and others v Samskip GmbH (Case C-456/11); [2012] WLR (D) 329
“On the proper interpretation of articles 32 and 33 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p 1), the court of a member state in which recognition was sought of a judgment by which a court of another member state had declined jurisdiction on the basis of a jurisdiction clause was bound by the finding—declaring the action inadmissible—regarding the validity of that judgment.”
WLR Daily, 15th November 2012
Source: www.iclr.co.uk