- Continuing duties after Walsham—limitation and the pitfalls of delay (Equitas v Sande Investments)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: In this claim, Equitas sought and failed to recover, sums from nine companies in the Sande group, that it alleged had collected monies as run-off brokers under certain excess of loss (re)insurance contracts, but not paid on to it assignee of the interests of two Lloyd’s Syndicates. In a detailed judgment, the judge (Leigh Ann Mulcahy QC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court) found first, that Equitas had not established any legal basis at all for its claim, and secondly, that even if it had, it would have been time-barred. The issues reviewed included whether a retainer between the parties could be implied, whether tortious obligations could be imposed that would circumvent contractual obligations, which broker’s duties give rise to a fiduciary obligation, the structure of claims in restitution, and the aspects of a parties’ relationship that would give rise to a continuing obligation. The judge also commented on the significance of the so-called Lloyd’s ‘Broker Code’ in determining whether an entity in the insurance field was or was not a broker. Written by Bernadette Bailey, partner at Carter Perry Bailey LLP.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial