Insurance & Reinsurance analysis: This is a Court of Appeal decision on a reverse summary judgment/strike out application in a broker’s negligence case. The case concerned ‘non-owned auto cover’, ie motor liability insurance cover in relation to the hiring of cars. Marsh appealed against the dismissal of its application on two grounds: (i) there was no allegation of actual liability, which was necessary for a claim under a liability policy; and (ii) the losses claimed were irrecoverable as reflective loss. The court dismissed the appeal on both grounds. The case decision highlights the important distinction in terms of causation between a claim under a liability policy, and a claim against a broker for negligently failing to place a liability policy. Written by Louis Zvesper, barrister at Gatehouse Chambers.

Public Law analysis: This case concerned an application for judicial review brought by three claimants (D1914, AAA and AVY) challenging the Secretary of State for the Home Department’s response to the Brook House Inquiry report. The claimants argued that the Secretary of State had failed to adequately implement the inquiry’s 33 recommendations following on from the scandal identified in 2017 of mistreatment of detainees at the Brook House Immigration Removal centre. However, Mrs Justice Lang refused the application on determining that the Secretary of State had not failed to discharge the investigative or systems duties imposed by article 3 of the European Convention of Human rights contrary to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1988, in not fully implementing all the recommendations of an inquiry which investigated mistreatment at an immigration removal centre. The recommendations had been substantially met, or were in the process of being met, and any decisions not to accept certain recommendations were a reasonable exercise of her executive discretion. Further the court held the Secretary of State had not breached any provision of the Inquiries Act 2005 (IA 2005). Written by Tim Baldwin, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

UK Finance has announced that two brothers, Benjamin and Jesse Ackim, from South London have received a combined total of three years as a suspended sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to defraud and for being in possession of articles in use for fraud. Following an investigation by the Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit, a specialist police unit sponsored by the banking industry, it was found that the brothers had committed £11,428 fraud and attempted another £25,644 of fraud by harvesting bank details from Barclaycard customers and making online purchases. Additionally, officers found equipment at the brothers’ home used to manufacture fake cards.

Dispute Resolution analysis: In a rare successful application to set aside an arbitral award made in an ad hoc arbitration for serious irregularity under section 68(2) of the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996), the High Court found that a failure to cross-examine a witness on a ‘core issue’ left the tribunal unable to reject the witness’s evidence. Further, it was not open for the tribunal to base its decision on a factual and legal theory of the case that had not been ventilated or addressed by the parties. The decision is a warning to counsel in London-seated arbitrations that a strategy of indirectly undermining a witness’s credibility on a ‘core issue’ may not be sufficient. It is also a warning to arbitrators that the scope of their power to assess evidence, and their power to ascertain the facts and the law (iura novit arbiter) is not unlimited, and may be affected by English judicial approaches to these powers. Written by Oliver Browne, partner, and Bryce Williams, associate, at Latham & Watkins.

Land that is or was occupied by a permanent structure; the opposite of greenfield or virgin land.

A site which has previously been developed for industrial or other urban uses.

Browsewrap is a way of entering into a contract with a customer online and relies on the customer's acceptance of a warning that mere continuation to view the site amounts to acceptance of the site's terms after warning has been given.

Commercial analysis: When will browse-wrap terms be valid as contracts? Nick Phillips, partner in Intellectual Property and IT for Edwin Coe LLP, analyses leading cases from the UK and overseas on the validity of browse-wrap terms in e-commerce.

Application that retrieves WWW documents specified by URLs from an HTTP server on the Internet. Displays the retrieved documents according to the Hypertext Mark-up Language (HTML).

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 30 October 2018; it is no longer maintained. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU investigation into Brussels Airlines and TAP Air Portugal (Case AT.39860). Latest development On 30 October 2018, the Commission announced that it closed its investigation. The Commission concluded that the evidence collected was not sufficient to confirm its initial concerns; furthermore, since 2014, new airlines have begun to compete with the code-sharing airlines on the Brussels-Lisbon route, to the benefit of consumers. The Commission points out though that this closure decision does not mean that close forms of cooperation between competing airlines will not raise competition concerns. Parties Brussels Airlines, based in Belgium (and a subsidiary of the German airline Lufthansa), and TAP Air Portugal, based in Portugal. Market(s) Scheduled passenger flights between

The Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 was adopted in 1963 to provide additional funds to compensate damage as a result of a nuclear incident where Paris Convention funds proved to be insufficient. The Brussels Convention stipulates that public funds are to be provided for this purpose, not only by the State where the liable operator's nuclear installation is located, but also by contributions from all parties to the Brussels Convention. The principles of the Brussels Convention are implemented into UK law by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965.

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note provides an overview when determining court jurisdiction in proceedings commenced in the courts of England and Wales on or before 31 December 2020 at 11 pm involving Gibraltar, Aruba (an overseas territory of the Netherlands) and French overseas territories. Where proceedings involving these territories are commenced after that date, the question of whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction will be determined under the provisions in CPR 6 and the common law. That determination occurs either when seeking permission of the court to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction or if the defendant disputes that the court has jurisdiction. For guidance, see Practice Notes: Cross-border service—is permission required to serve a defendant who is outside England and Wales?, Determining whether the courts of England and Wales have jurisdiction, Cross-border service—application for permission to serve outside England and Wales and Cross-border service—jurisdictional gateways (principles). For a copy of the convention, see: Brussels Convention 1968. Introduction In the UK, the