- Supreme Court interprets matters relating to insurance under Brussels I (recast) (Aspen Underwriting Ltd v Credit Europe Bank)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide?
- Exclusive jurisdiction clause
- Matters relating to insurance
- Protection under Article 14
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: In Aspen Underwriting v Credit Europe Bank NV, the Supreme Court gave detailed consideration to the phrase ‘matters relating to insurance’ from Chapter II section 3 of the Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (Brussels I (recast). The Supreme Court undertook a detailed review of the case law concerning whether a policyholder, insured or beneficiary was always to be entitled to the benefit of s 3 of the regulation, or whether this was dependent on relative economic power. The Supreme Court firmly concluded that if, correctly categorised as a policyholder, insured or beneficiary, then such person would have the protection of s 3. Written by Angharad Parry, barrister, at Twenty Essex.
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