There have been a number of cases in recent years in which a party has sought to utilise the provisions of the CPR in order to obtain information on the opposing party's insurance arrangements, rather than waiting for that party to go insolvent in order to use the procedures provided by the Third Parties Rights Act 1930 or 2010. The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) looks at this again in light of the discretion which Judges have under CPR31.16 for applications for pre-action disclosure and attempts to shut the door on such actions.
The 2010 Act has now been updated by regulations (the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016) to reflect changes in insolvency law. Accordingly, the long-awaited 2010 Act will finally come into force on 1 August 2016.
It will be recalled that the 2010 Act is intended to make it easier for third party claimants to bring direct actions against (re)insurers where an insured has become insolvent. The key changes coming in are as follows:
The High Court ruling in Schroder Exempt Property Unit Trust and another v Birmingham City Council [2014] EWHC 2207 provides helpful clarification on whether or not a landlord is liable to pay business rates on an empty property following the liquidation of a tenant and the subsequent disclaimer of the lease.
Background
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (‘CIGA’) came into force in June 2020 and introduced significant reforms to the insolvency law of England and Wales. This article explores the temporary measures introduced by CIGA, with a particular focus on what they mean for creditors looking to recover bad debts and offers a possible solution for creditors with claims which, in current challenging times, may be written off as disproportionately costly to take forward.
Limited debt recovery options and enforcement rights until (at least) 31 December 2020
On occasion, parties engaged in court proceedings will consider procedural tactics with the ultimate intention of exerting such pressure on their adversaries that their weakened position, or even inability to pursue the proceedings, will work to their advantage. Such a situation arose in (1) Deleclass Shipping Co. Ltd (2) MWI Shipping Services Ltd v Ingosstrakh Insurance Co. Ltd (2018) where the defendant's application for security for costs became very problematic for the claimants.
Whether third party claimant entitled to pre-action disclosure of currently solvent insured's insurance policy
Overview
The IMF, in a January 2016 update to its World Economic Outlook, revised its global growth projections for 2016 and 2017 down by 0.2%, citing a decline in emerging markets' growth and lower prices for energy and other commodities.[1]
With the trough in the global economy set to continue, there is unlikely to be any respite for the marine and trade industries, where counterparty insolvency will become more prevalent.
Whether insurer liable to repay purchasers’ deposits following dissolution of developer/policy interpretation
In light of the fast moving pace of developments on COVID-19, and the varying degrees to which information is available to our clients in the projects & construction sector in relation to its impact on their operations, we will be circulating a regular update that addresses the following:
A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.
Engelhart CTP v Lloyd's Syndicate 1221: Court holds that all risks cargo policy did not cover fraudulent documents for a non-existent cargo