header-logo header-logo

16 May 2014
Issue: 7606 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Oil pollution

Assuranceforeningen Gard Gjensidig v The International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund 1971 [2014] EWHC 1394 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 74 (May)

The defendant (the Fund) was an international legal organisation, created pursuant to the Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution of 1971 (the Fund convention), and was a corporation under English law, by virtue of the International Organisations Act 1968 and the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1979 (the Order). The Fund enjoyed privileges and immunities within the UK, pursuant to Art 5 of the Headquarters Agreement with the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (the HQ Agreement) and s 6 of the Order. In proceedings brought by insurers who had had to pay for pollution in Venezuela, the insurers applied for a freezing injunction against the fund. 

It was held that the immunity conferred under s 6(1) of the order was not a complete immunity. It was a qualified immunity. Immunity was only granted if and to the extent that the suit or legal process did

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

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson—Vicky Tomlinson

Browne Jacobson appoints Vicky Tomlinson as Head of Independent Health and Care

DWF—five appointments

DWF—five appointments

DWF further strengthens major injury and casualty offering with new partner and four directors from DAC Beachcroft

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis—Laura Ornsby

Switalskis strengthens Grimsby child care team

NEWS
The Supreme Court has settled a long-running dispute over part-time workers: unfavourable treatment need be a significant or effective cause, not the sole cause
Arbitration may be private, but its confidentiality is no impenetrable shield. Writing in NLJ this week, James Glaysher of Kingsley Napley examines when courts will permit arbitral material to surface in open litigation
The Financial Reporting Council’s revised Audit Enforcement Procedure will alter the balance of power in corporate investigations
A telecoms operator may be able to hold over under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, yet still be unable to secure a renewal: an outcome described as a legal ‘paradox’

Safety fears do not automatically justify shutting an interested person out of a statutory will application

back-to-top-scroll