The reassurance of policy risks on an individual basis, normally used on a one-off basis to lay off a large or exceptional risk.

Reinsurance in respect of a particular risk, as compared with a reinsurance treaty, which provides a contractual framework for the automatic or optional cession of risks to be reinsured.

Construction analysis: This is a case that concerned the key question as to whether at the time of the issue of the claim form (the ‘Claim Form’), the claimant (‘USAF’) was in a position properly to identify the essence of the claim. If the answer to that question was no, the only remedy would be for the Claim Form to be struck out as, at the time of issue, USAF could have had no intention to pursue the proceedings, since it had no known basis to do so. No doubt to the relief of USAF, Mr Justice Eyre held that USAF was in a position to properly identify the essence of its claim and did intend to pursue the claim. USAF was therefore able to continue with its claim. The case provides important insight for legal practitioners and potential claimants and defendants into the relevant considerations when bringing a claim or being the recipient of claim and/or a request for a standstill agreement on the eve of the expiration of the limitation period. Written by Sam Beer, senior associate at Hill Dickinson LLP.

Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court held that the costs of an abortive early neutral evaluation (ENE) should remain costs in the case, notwithstanding that the defendants’ failure fully to plead their case was the immediate cause of the ENE being adjourned. His Honour Judge Pearce held that courts should be very cautious about making adverse costs orders following failed ENE because of the risk of satellite litigation and of discouraging engagement with alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Although the court retained its general costs discretion under CPR 44.2, the appropriate starting point was a presumption that ENE costs would be costs in the case unless compelling factors justified another order.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: This decision concerned four applications, of which the key applications were, first, an application under paragraph 74 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 ('paragraph 74') to challenge the refinancing proposal advanced by a company's administrators, and second, an application for an interim injunction to restrain another company from financing that restructuring. Dismissing the applications, the court held that the applicant's conduct in separate proceedings mean that he could not assert his standing as a member to challenge the administrators' proposal, that there was no unfair harm on the facts, and that the second and third limbs of the American Cyanamid test were not satisfied such that an interim injunction was inappropriate. Written by Matthew Innes, barrister at Serle Court.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The High Court confirmed that amounts paid to an administrator by way of remuneration and expenses for the realisation of fixed charge assets cannot be challenged under Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016 (IR 2016), SI 2016/1024, r 18.34, which only concerns remuneration that is payable to an administrator in respect of the administration of assets as part of the insolvency process, from the company’s assets. While this decision confirms existing principle and practice, challenges remain possible through other routes, including under paragraphs 74 and 75 of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986). Practical implications written by Sam Fenwick, partner, and Yasin Khan, solicitor apprentice, of Wedlake Bell LLP.

Law360: Liquidators for Trafalgar Multi Asset Trading Ltd have secured court rulings that multiple defendants took part in a conspiracy to deprive investors of their hard-earned money as they pursue their quest to recover millions in misappropriated savings.

Law360: A recent tribunal decision dismissing mass action worth up to £1.5bn against major water companies for under-reporting pollution shows the limits of bringing competition law claims in highly-regulated sectors while offering hope that novel case theories can succeed.

The offence of failing to identify driver Registered owners and drivers of vehicles are required, under certain circumstances, to provide information as to the driver of a vehicle. Section 172(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) imposes a duty on the registered keeper of a vehicle, as well as any other person if so required, to furnish information as to the identity of the driver or provide information that is within their power to give that may lead to the identification of the driver where an road traffic offence as allegedly been committed. This is a summary only offence which can only be tried in the magistrates’ court. Elements of the offence of failing to identify the driver A person is guilty of an offence if: • an offence to which RTA 1988, s 172 applies is alleged to have been committed, and • the person keeping the vehicle involved in the offence is requested to provide information as to the identity of the driver, or

IP analysis: Natalie Welch, senior associate at Marks &Clerk LLP, considers the financial fallout for the Post Office of failing to secure ownership of IP in the context of the Horizon scandal.

Under section 170 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988), drivers are under a duty to stop at the scene of an accident and, if required, to provide personal details and to report an accident. Failure to do so gives rise to summary only offences triable only in the magistrates’ court. This duty arises when: • a driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle • drives on a road or other public place, and • an accident occurs by which: ◦ personal injury is caused (to a person other than the defendant) or ◦ damage is caused (to another vehicle or property other than that belonging to the defendant, or to an animal not in the vehicle) Damage to property means property constructed on, fixed to, growing in or otherwise forming part of the land on which the road or public place in question is situated or land adjacent to such land. For the purpose of this offence, the definition of animal is restricted to horse,

The TCC has held that in disclosure cases where mistakes or errors result in significant consequences in relation to both time and costs for the other party/parties the court will generally make an order for wasted costs. In this case the TCC ordered the claimant to pay a significant proportion of the other party's costs incurred as a consequence of the claimant's own failures during the disclosure process. Those costs were to be the subject of detailed assessment, rather than summary assessment, and the claimant was also ordered to make a payment of £135,000 on account of costs. The TCC was particularly critical of the following (1) failing to remove duplicates from the documents (de-duplication), (2) failing to provide a consistent set of electronic data, and (3) the failure to properly review documents from searches in the electronic database.