The Supreme Court handed down judgment in AIG Europe Limited v Woodman (and other Respondents)  UKSC 18 on 22 March 2017. Peter Morcos and Ben Lynch, led by Colin Edelman QC, appeared for the successful appellants, AIG.
The case is a landmark decision in the sphere of professional indemnity insurance, and the first case before the Supreme Court concerning aggregation clauses since the House of Lords decision in Lloyds TSB General Holdings v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Co Ltd  Lloyd’s Rep IR 623.
The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s finding that on the true construction of the SRA minimum terms and conditions “a series of related matters or transactions” required an “intrinsic” relationship.
The decision of the Supreme Court in BPE Solicitors v. Hughes-Holland  UKSC 21 is of great interest and importance to those concerned with claims against professionals. Roger Stewart QC and Scott Allen appeared for the Respondents. David Halpern QC and Adam Chichester-Clark represented the Appellant. The latter’s challenge to the decision of the House of Lords in SAAMCO, based on a considerable body of academic criticism and the extra-curricular writings of Lord Hoffmann was unsuccessful. Dismissing the appeal the Supreme Court both clarified the decision in SAAMCO and held that, where a defendant’s duty was to...
Jonathan Hough QC appeared successfully for the defendant insurer in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Sydney, in the trial of this professional indemnity/product liability insurance dispute. The dispute arose out of a large arbitral claim against Weir concerning its refurbishment of a large piece of mining equipment. AXA declined to cover Weir under Global Policies (governed by English law) and a Broadform Policy (governed by Australian law), and the declinature was challenged. The case raised issues of cover for a “collar” payment; the scope of product liability and professional indemnity sections of the policies (including definition of “product”); the ambit of various policy exclusions; late notification of circumstances; and estoppel / variation.
Judgment has been delivered by the Court of Appeal in the appeals of McBride v UKI and Clayton v EUI, the latest battle in the 25-year campaign of litigation waged between motor insurers and credit hire companies. Benjamin Williams QC represented the Appellant in McBride, while Jonathan Hough QC represented the Respondent in Clayton. The appeals concerned the vexed and commercially important question of assessment of the benchmark “basic hire rate”, including the extent to which reasonable adjustments may be made in the assessment process. The judgment lays down principles relevant to assessment of damages in thousands of County Court...