In RoadPeace v Secretary of State for Transport & Motor Insurers’ Bureau (Interested Party)  EWHC 2725 (Admin), the claimant – a road safety charity – claimed that certain provisions of UK law relating to compulsory vehicle insurance and compensation for victims of uninsured/untraced divers contravened European Directive 2009/103 (“the Directive”). Continue reading
Author Archives: Mark Everiss
High Court Rules That Certain Provisions Of Domestic Motor Insurance Law Contravene Insurance Directive 2009/103
In the recent decision in H v L, M, N and P  EWHC 137 (Comm) in the Commercial Court, Mr Justice Popplewell addressed an attempt by the Claimant, H, to remove M, the third arbitrator in a arbitration between H and L, on the basis that the conduct of M gave rise to an appearance of bias. Mr Justice Popplewell rejected H’s claim – none of the grounds advanced by H, either individually or cumulatively, established any circumstances which gave rise to any justifiable doubts as to the impartiality of M.
In Zurich Insurance PLC v Maccaferri Ltd  EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal considered the notification provisions of a policy, held by the respondent (Maccaferri), which covered accidental death and personal injury (“the policy”). The policy contained a condition precedent which required Maccaferri to give the appellant insurer (Zurich) notice in writing “as soon as possible after the occurrence of any event likely to give rise to a claim”. Maccaferri was also required to give “immediate notice” to Zurich on receiving verbal or written notice of any claim.
Supreme Court determines that an insurer can set aside a settlement of a personal injury claim even if, at the time of settlement, the insurer suspected fraud by the claimant.
In Hayward v Zurich Insurance Company plc  UKSC 48, the Supreme Court held that the insurer, Zurich, which had settled a personal injury claim by the claimant, Mr Hayward, despite suspecting fraud on the part of the claimant, was entitled to set aside the settlement on the later discovery of proof of fraud. Zurich did not have to prove that it settled the claim because it believed that Mr Hayward’s misrepresentations about the extent of his injuries were true. Zurich simply had to show that it had been influenced by the misrepresentations in agreeing the settlement.
In S v (1) A (2) B  EWHC 846 (Comm), Mr Justice Eder refused to grant an extension of time under the Arbitration Act 1996 (the “Act”) s.80(5) to challenge an arbitral award, following the applicant’s 74-day delay in applying and its failure to demonstrate that there had been a serious irregularity under s.68 of the Act. The decision also serves as a reminder of the fact that the time limit for challenging an award under the Act runs from the date of the award as opposed to the date it is made available to the parties.
In two recent cases, the Commercial Court has looked at the question of serious irregularity under s.68 of the Arbitration Act 1996. In both instances the Court concluded that there was no serious irregularity and the Awards of the respective tribunals were upheld. Findings of serious irregularity are rare, not least as they require a finding, in addition to the irregular act or omission, that “substantial injustice” has been or will be caused to the applicant as a consequence. Continue reading
In Union Marine Classification Services LLC v The Government of the Union of Comoros  EWHC 508 (Comm) the Commercial Court gave judgment on whether a section 67 Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) application was the appropriate vehicle to challenge an arbitration award.