header-logo header-logo

04 September 2009 / William Flenley
Issue: 7383 / Categories: Opinion , Public
printer mail-detail

Not to be forgotten

William Flenley hopes civil law reform will sit high on the government’s agenda

AXA Insurance Ltd v Akther & Darby [2009] EWHC 635 (Comm), [2009] PNLR 25 is the latest in a long line of cases grappling with the cause of action accrued in a claim in tort for economic loss. It is another example of the court distinguishing the House of Lords’ reasoning in Law Society v Sephton [2006] 3 All ER 401. CLE was a company which provided after-the-event insurance to members of the public. It relied on a panel of solicitors to vet claims and (i) only to accept claims with chances of success of greater than 50%, and (ii) to notify insurers if subsequent events reduced the chances of success below 50%.

It is now said that the panel solicitors were negligent in either vetting or subsequently reporting on 26,000 claims and £65m is claimed from the solicitors. Limitation issues arose in relation to 7,383 claims. This led to a two day preliminary trial and a detailed and helpful judgment

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll