(Re)Insurance Weekly Update 6 - 2015

Author:Mr Nigel Brook
Profession:Clyde & Co
 
FREE EXCERPT

Welcome to the sixth edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2015.

These updates are aimed at keeping you up to speed and informed of the latest developments in caselaw relevant to your practice.

The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12th February 2015 and so will come into force in August 2016

This week's caselaw

Shipowners' Mutual P&I Association v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat

A Clyde & Co case on whether a direct right of action against insurers under Turkish law could be heard by the English courts.

Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill

The Supreme Court rules that the Welsh legislature cannot make insurers retrospectively liable to cover NHS costs.

Freehold Estates v NatWest

A case on whether a claimant is liable to pay the costs of discontinuing where a settlement has been reached.

Shagang South-Asia v Daewoo

A decision on whether the seat of an arbitration was where it was "to be held".

Graham v Commercial Bodyworks

The Court of Appeal decides if there was vicarious liability following the intentional act of a co-employee.

The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12th February 2015 and so will come into force in August 2016. Below are links to our three updates on the Act.

http://www.clydeco.com/insight/updates/view/the-proposed-bill-on-insurance-law-what-does-it-mean-for-business-insurers

http://www.clydeco.com/insight/updates/view/client-briefing-insurance-contract-law-reform

http://www.clydeco.com/insight/updates/view/insurance-act-2015-set-to-be-passed-shortly

This week's caselaw

Shipowners' Mutual P&I Association v Containerships Denizcilik Nakliyat

Whether direct right of action against insurers under Turkish law could be heard by the English courts

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2015/258.html

Clyde & Co for defendant

PD6B para 3.1(6)(c) provides that a claim form can be served out of the jurisdiction, with the court's permission, if "a claim is made in respect of a contract where the contract...is governed by English law" (emphasis added).

Following the loss of a vessel, the Turkish charterers commenced arbitration proceedings in London against the Turkish owners. However, under Turkish law, they also claimed to have a right of direct action against the owners' liability insurers, a P&I Club. They commenced proceedings in Turkey. However, the Club sought an anti-suit injunction to restrain the charterers from continuing those proceedings. In order to do so, they required the permission of the English court to serve out of the jurisdiction. The issue was therefore whether the charterers' claim was, in substance, a claim to enforce the contract between the Club and the owners (so that PD6B applied), or whether it was a claim to...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL