This case tracker focuses on insurance and reinsurance-related court cases and decisions. The Insurance & Reinsurance case tracker displays the status of court cases reported since January 2026 and is updated fortnightly. The following abbreviations are used: • Supreme Court—SC • Court of Appeal—CA • King's Bench Division—KB • Chancery Division—Ch • Central London County Court—CLCC • The Technology and Construction Court—TCC • The Inner House of the Court of Session (Scotland)—CSIH • The Outer House of the Court of Session (Scotland)—CSOH • Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—JCPC For previous years, see: • Insurance & Reinsurance case tracker—2025 [Archived] • Insurance & Reinsurance case tracker—2024 [Archived] • Insurance & Reinsurance case tracker—2023 [Archived] • Insurance & Reinsurance case tracker—2022 [Archived] • Insurance & Reinsurance case tracker—2021 [Archived] • Insurance & Reinsurance case tracker—2020 [Archived] Decided cases 2026 September Court Case name Subject Details CA AXA France Iard S.A. and another company v Santander Cards UK Ltd and another[2026] EWCA Civ 1185 Contract ~ Construction of Indemnity Clause ~ Whether Indemnity Clause

Claimant [[insert number of witness statement eg First]] witness statement of [Insert witness name] Exhibits: [Insert exhibit reference] Date on which the statement was made: [Insert date] [Date of translation: [insert date]] Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts of england and wales Commercial court (KBD) OR Claim No: [Insert details] In the high court of justice business and property courts in [insert location] [specify division] [specify specialist court] In the matter of AN arbitration And in an arbitration claim Between: 1 [Claimant’s name] Claimant and 2 [Defendant’s name] Defendant Witness statement of [insert witness name] I, [insert witness name] of [insert witness address], WILL SAY as follows: Introduction 1 I am [insert position or details of witness and their role and relationship to the Claimant]. I am authorised to make this witness statement on the Claimant’s behalf. 2 I make this witness statement in support of the Claimant’s application for an order that: 2.1 The arbitration agreement in the [insert details of relevant contract containing the arbitration agreement] (the “Agreement”) is not null or void, inoperative or otherwise incapable of being performed. That arbitration agreement is valid and binding on the Defendant. 2.2 Pursuant to [section

This Practice Note examines the events and situations that may bring an agency arrangement to an end and the consequences of termination of an agency on the parties involved. This Practice Note does not consider the consequences of termination of a commercial agency, for which see Practice Note: Termination of commercial agency. Termination of agency An agency may be terminated by: • agreement of the parties • other act of the parties • operation of law Termination by agreement or act of the parties An agency may be terminated by the parties on agreement to do so or by either party due to acts by the other amounting to repudiation (see Practice Notes: Termination and expiry of contracts and Repudiation of contract). Written agency agreements should set out any minimum terms and periods of notice applicable, events of breach for which the agreement may be terminated and any specific provisions applicable after notice of termination and termination taking effect. For a precedent that can be adapted as necessary, see Precedents: • Sales and marketing agency agreement for goods—non-exclusive—short

With thanks to Kaarthiga Manimaran for help and input. The Insurance Act 2015 (IA 2015) received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015 and, apart from Part 6 of the Act, came into force on 12 August 2016. It represents the most comprehensive update of the statutory framework of English law for insurance contracts since the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906). For a detailed analysis of the IA 2015, see Practice Note: Insurance Act 2015 (IA 2015)—essentials. Below we consider some frequently asked questions (FAQs) on the IA 2015. Question Answer Further reading/relevant cases or legislation What is the IA 2015 and when did it come into force? IA 2015 is the most significant reform of English insurance contract law since MIA 1906. It received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015 and, apart from Part 6, came into force on 12 August 2016. It reformed the law on fair presentation, remedies for non-disclosure and misrepresentation, warranties, fraudulent claims, contracting out, and third-party rights. The Enterprise Act 2016 (EA 2016)

This Practice Note sets out the key considerations in research services contracts from the perspective of both the provider and commissioner of research services. It explores considerations relating to the scope of the research project, key personnel, responsibility for obtaining regulatory consents or approvals, any necessary third-party licences, resources, the reporting process, fees, confidentiality, background and foreground intellectual property rights (IPRs), the treatment of research results, trade marks, warranties, indemnities, limitations on liability and termination. Research services contracts Research services contracts are required where a business is outsourcing research to a third party with specialist knowledge and skills. The research services provider may be a university or other academic institution or a contract research organisation whose sole business is the provision of research services. Research services contracts are common in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries but may be used in other fields as well. They differ from collaborative and joint research projects in that the research services provider generally has no further involvement in the project after termination of the agreement and will not acquire or retain any of

Employment analysis: A tribunal must look at the ‘real basis’ of a payment to determine whether it is made genuinely and exclusively to cover costs (ie for expenses and therefore to be excluded from holiday pay calculations) or is a performance payment (ie part of normal pay and to be included). Despite being a Northern Ireland Supreme Court decision, it was agreed that Agnew should be treated as an authoritative statement on the correct interpretation of section 23 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ie that the EAT in Bear Scotland was wrong to conclude that a gap of more than three months between deductions necessarily breaks a series). There is no statutory power for the employer to designate which leave days are to be treated as statutory as opposed to contractual but Agnew does not preclude the contract granting such power in a given case. However, the purported exercise of any such power cannot be relied upon to make the worker’s position in relation to a time point less favourable than it would have been had it not been exercised, according to the EAT.

Dispute Resolution analysis: This case involved an anti-suit injunction against proceedings in France, in light of an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of resolution in England. The defendant French company resisted the application on the grounds that such a clause was not binding under French consumer regulations. Noting this, Mr Justice Jacobs nevertheless granted the injunction on the basis that the relevant test was whether the defendant qualified as a consumer under English, not French law. Had their defence been successful, the defendant would have enjoyed greater legal protection under French law, which since 2016 has legislated in favour not just of consumers but any legal entity contracting outside the normal scope of its business. However, the judge found that since the parties’ contract was governed by English law, the validity of its exclusive jurisdiction clause must be determined with regard to English law, and, by extension, the English legal definition of a consumer. Written by Natalie Todd, partner, with assistance from Samuel Peters, paralegal, at Cooke, Young & Keidan LLP.

This week's edition of Life Sciences weekly highlights includes news that the European Commission and the Member State Coordination Group on Health Technology Assessment (HTA CG) have published new and updated guidance on the EU Health Technology Assessment Regulation, and that EFPIA has published its annual WAIT Indicator report highlighting continuing disparities in patient access to innovative medicines across Europe. Also included is news that the Commission has launched calls for evidence on industrial biotechnology and biomanufacturing, to inform the proposed Biotech Act II, and on revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive and Tobacco Advertising Directive, as well as the first quarterly report from the Commission, Heads of Medicines Agencies (HMA) and EMA tracking progress against EU clinical trial targets. Further news includes the MHRA announcing increased life sciences engagement in Wales, as well as two High Court judgments: Novo Nordisk A/S v British Telecommunications Plc concerning website blocking injunctions against sites supplying counterfeit and unlicensed prescription-only medicines (POMs), and a Merck judgment concerning confidentiality restrictions in trade mark and breach of contract litigation, among other stories.

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The Court of Appeal dismissed Morley’s appeal, rejecting his claim for damages against Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) for alleged breach of duty and alleged intimidation and economic duress. Morley alleged RBS had breached its duty of reasonable skill and care in negotiating a consensual resolution where a £75m loan had expired which Morley was unable to repay in full. The Court of Appeal held that RBS owed no such duty and its only duty was the limited duty owed as mortgagee, which had not been breached. Moreover, the Court of Appeal rejected Morley’s claim that he could set aside the agreement which had been reached with RBS on grounds of intimidation and duress as Morley could not prove coercion. The case is a reminder of the difficulty of establishing claims of economic duress in commercial contexts and emphasises the limited scope of a bank’s duty once the lending contract has come to an end. Written by Paul Sinclair QC, barrister, at Fountain Court Chambers.

Pensions analysis: In Philips v National Grid, the High Court (Mr Justice Lavender) allowed an appeal against a decision of the County Court giving summary judgment for the defendant on the basis that the claimant’s claims were out of time. The claimant brought claims in June 2022 for negligence and breach of contract in respect of the defendant’s failure to provide him with an ill-health pension following his dismissal in August 2002 ‘on the grounds of capability due to ill health’, and a continuing failure to obtain a proper medical opinion as to the claimant’s ability to work. The High Court considered that it was arguable that the defendant had a duty to obtain a fresh medical opinion within a reasonable time after a request made by the claimant in 2009. This decision will be of interest to pensions practitioners, but it will also be of interest to those who advise on limitation issues and the potential impact of a continuing breach of duty on time limits. Written by Elizabeth Grace, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.

The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has published a blogpost calling on trust-based defined contribution (DC) schemes to create a healthy competitive market where schemes drive each other on to do even better for savers. TPR stated that the focus of competition should be on genuine value, taking into account the investment returns and services received for the price paid, and not on cost alone. This follows the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)'s consultation on a new value for money (VFM) framework for workplace pension savers which was launched on 8 August 2024. TPR believes that the consultation takes a huge step towards creating a pensions market with a 'laser-like' focus on value, which is particularly important as millions of people will largely rely on a DC occupational pension to give them a decent standard of living when they retire. TPR will be working alongside the FCA and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) on creating a VFM framework for contract-based schemes. To this effect, the DWP is aiming to introduce equivalent legislation for trust-based DC schemes in the upcoming Pensions Schemes Bill. TPR will continue to work with the industry to ensure that the VFM framework enables effective competition between schemes, drives better value across the whole workplace DC market, and facilitates employer choice, by reducing the number of savers with workplace pensions that deliver poor value.

Construction analysis: The Mayor’s & City of London Court granted summary enforcement of an adjudication decision relating to a termination account in favour of Providence, but stayed that judgment pending the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the validity of that termination in Providence Building Services Limited (Respondent) v Hexagon Housing Association Ltd (Appellant) UKSC/2024/0130. The court applied the Wimbledon v Vago principles in reaching its decision and held that, because of the interplay of the adjudication regime and the financial difficulties of the Providence, it would be inexpedient to allow the judgment to be enforced prior to the outcome of the hearing before the Supreme Court. The court took into consideration that, given that permission to appeal had been granted, Hexagon had at least an arguable case before the Supreme Court that Providence had not lawfully terminated the contract, the outcome in favour of Providence in the termination account adjudication is predicated on the validity of its contractual termination (the issue before the Supreme Court), and if Hexagon succeeds in the Supreme Court then Providence would not be in a financial position to repay the judgment.