When A, in full knowledge, permits X, who has contracted with A (or has through the course of negotiations believed agreement to be in place), to do something in good faith on the basis of the contract (or purported agreement), then X will be protected from A asserting that there is no contract (cf homologation).

EU Law analysis: A request was made by the Austrian Supreme Court for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 8(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) 261/2004, the EU Air Passenger Rights Compensation Regulation, relating to reimbursement of the cost of an air ticket in the event of flight cancellation, and whether such reimbursement must include any commission paid to an intermediary such as a travel agent when purchasing tickets on its website. The Court of Justice held that Article 8(1)(a), when read in conjunction with Article 5(1)(a), must be interpreted as meaning that the cost of the ticket to be reimbursed to a passenger in the event of flight cancellation includes the difference between the amount paid by the passenger and the amount received by the carrier, which corresponds to a commission collected by the intermediary, even where the carrier does not know the exact amount of commission involved. Written by Kathryn Ward, of counsel at DLA Piper UK LLP.

Arbitration analysis: This case dealt with an application for enforcement of a foreign arbitral award settling a dispute between Neilan International Co Ltd (Neilan) and Powerica Ltd (Powerica) (together, the ‘Parties’). The disputes arose out of agreements for the design, construction and commissioning of thermal power plants in Sudan for National Electricity Corporation (NEC), the employer. Following a unilateral assignment of rights by NEC to Neilan, disputes arose between the Parties and arbitration proceedings commenced, resulting in the passing of a partial award dated 21 April 2015 (on the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal and validity of the arbitration agreement) (Partial Award) and a final award dated 27 September 2018 (Final Award). Neilan applied for enforcement of the Final Award before the High Court of Bombay (Court). Powerica opposed the enforcement on grounds that there existed no valid arbitration agreement between Powerica and Neilan, and that enforcement of an award upholding the unilateral assignment was in contravention with Indian public policy (under sections 48(1)(a) and 48(2)(b) of the (Indian) Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (Indian A&C Act)). Neilan argued that the validity of the arbitration agreement (per the applicable governing law, ie Sudanese law) had already been duly considered and upheld by the award, which had attained finality, and it was not open for the enforcing court to revisit the merits of the dispute when examining whether the Final Award was in contravention to Indian public policy. The court rejected Powerica’s objections, holding that the tribunal’s findings on the merits of the arbitration agreement were final and could not be challenged at the stage of enforcement. The court held that revisiting the issue would constitute a review of the merits of the award, impermissible under section 48 of the Indian A&C Act. The court reinforced the principle that public policy defences to the enforcement of foreign awards entail a narrow reading, in consonance with the pro-enforcement ethos of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention). Written by Ila Kapoor, partner at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi Kshipra Pyare, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi Sahaj Mathur, associate at Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas, New Delhi.

This Practice Note examines when reinstatement will be ordered as a remedy under section 112 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (ERA 1996) following a finding of unfair dismissal. It outlines the key considerations of whether reinstatement is what the employee wants, whether it is practicable and whether it would be just in the circumstances. It addresses the contents and effect of a reinstatement order and the calculation of arrears of pay and other benefits. It explains that a second stage reinstatement hearing will take place where the reinstatement order has not been complied with, either fully or at all, including calculation of an additional award of compensation under ERA 1996, s 117 if the tribunal finds that it was practicable for the employer to have complied with the reinstatement or re-engagement order. Reinstatement is one of the orders that may be made by a tribunal under ERA 1996, s 112 following a finding of unfair dismissal. For a discussion of the other remedies available, see Practice Note: Unfair dismissal remedies—general. Following a finding of unfair dismissal, the tribunal must explain

Following the lapse of a policy, ordinarily through failure to pay the due premiums, some policies allow the ability to reinstate the cover.

This Practice Note summarises the key principles regarding reinstatement in property insurance. What is reinstatement? Reinstatement is the repair or replacement of property so that it is in the same condition or a materially equivalent condition to that which it was in prior to the loss occurring. The wording of reinstatement clauses, however, varies from policy to policy with very different outcomes for the policyholder. For example, depending on the precise wording, the policyholder may or may not be entitled to a cash settlement, may or may not be required to rebuild, and may or may not have to rebuild on the same site. Also, many policies give the insurer the option to reinstate. Who does it? As might be expected, more often than not the policyholder reinstates. Many policies, however, give the insurer the option to reinstate at its election. Why might an insurer choose to do so? There are several reasons why an insurer might elect to reinstate, rather than have the policyholder reinstate or pay them an amount

The reinstatement of a patent application occurs where an application to reinstate is made following the applications termination.

An insurance policy covering an insurer’s exposure to a policy or class of policies that it has insured. Proportional reinsurance is written on an agreed percentage of risk, as opposed to non-proportional or excess of loss insurance, which responds once the limit of the underlying layers have been eroded.

This Practice Note provides a high level introduction to the role of reinsurance brokers when placing reinsurance that is intended to be ‘back-to-back’ with the underlying policy. It provides guidance as to how the duties owed by reinsurance brokers differ from brokers only placing direct insurance. It provides information and guidance on the potential conflicts of interest involved in placing back-to-back reinsurance and on risks and common mistakes that may result in claims against brokers acting in a dual capacity. This Practice Note also provides practical guidance as to how brokers may prevent or mitigate negligence claims against them and provides links to related content. The term ‘direct’ is used in the context of insurance and reinsurance placements to refer to the insurance of the original policyholder as opposed to reinsurances of the risk. The term ‘direct’ should not be confused with ‘primary’, which refers to the first layer of a non-proportional insurance or reinsurance programme. For more information on the different forms of reinsurance and on reinsurance terminology, see Practice Note: Reinsurance—essentials—Facultative

This Practice Note provides an introduction to the reinsurance market—what it is, how it works and some key concepts that underpin it. What is reinsurance? Reinsurance is insurance for insurers. It is a contract of insurance purchased by an insurer—typically through a specialist reinsurance broker—to cover that insurer's liabilities. Note that, in practice, a reinsurance contract may sometimes be arranged before the insurance contract to which it relates. Reinsurance may cover very varied types of risk—such as life, property, third party liabilities, and cyber risk—in much the same way as insurance. Purpose of reinsurance The reinsurance industry is a key global industry and the backbone of the insurance industry. Reinsurance serves a number of key purposes including: • allowing insurance companies to spread the financial risk they take on when they underwrite insurance policies, to reduce volatility and smooth insurers' loss experience, protecting against major disasters and incidents (such as hurricanes, wildfires and earthquakes) • reducing the regulatory capital that insurers are required to hold • allowing an insurer to enter into a new

Law360: An Italian reinsurer has lost its challenge against French insurer Covéa Insurance Plc's coronavirus business interruption (BI) claim, with a London appellate court on 30 September 2024 upholding findings that the pandemic met the definition of 'catastrophe' used in the policy.

Law360, London: Reinsurers including American International Group (AIG) and AXA have denied liability for Chubb's US$5.7m bill to aircraft lessors for losses caused by Russia's invasion of Ukraine, saying Chubb's losses were not caused by any failure by the reinsurers to indemnify the lessors.