Supreme Court construes aggregation provision in minimum terms and conditions of professional indemnity insurance


On Wednesday 22 March 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in AIG Europe Limited v Woodman and others [2017] UKSC 18. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, and remitted the case back to the High Court. It held that determining the meaning of "a series of related matters or transactions” in the aggregation clause contained in the Minimum Terms and Conditions for solicitors' professional indemnity insurance necessitated a fact sensitive inquiry to be carried out. The relevant transactions or matters are to be viewed objectively and in the round. Lord Toulson, who gave the judgment of the Court, dismissed as not "necessary or satisfactory" the Court of Appeal's formulation that there must be an “intrinsic relationship” between the transactions or matters.


Edward Risso-Gill led by Tom Leech QC, of Herbert Smith Freehills’ Advocacy Unit, appeared on behalf of the trustees.


Read more here

Desiree Artesi secures a landmark Privy Council judgment establishing a new frontier in Caribbean administrative law.


On Monday 14 May 2018, the Privy Council promulgated judgment in Hon. Att-Gen & Another v Isaac (Antigua and Barbuda) [2018] UKPC 11. The case was an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda).

The Judicial Committee ruled in favour of Mrs Isaacs’ claim that firstly, her application was properly brought within the rules of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (ECSC) part 56.1, and, was not an application for judicial review and; secondly; that the nature of Mrs Isaacs’ claim was not a private law claim, and therefore it was suitable for adjudication in the Privy Council, and not, as the other side contended, the employment court.


Central findings of the Privy Council were that:

1. CPR 56.1 makes provision for four different types of applications which fall within the ambit of administrative orders;
2. There is no need for leave or permission to apply for an administrative order pursuant to CPR 56.1(1)(b) of the ECSC rules;
3. The Privy Council accepted that there was little decided authority and so gave general guidance to judges deciding whether an application was for an administrative order, or alternatively for judicial review:

“ the Court of Appeal must be right in saying that an in-depth analysis of the nature of the claim will not normally be necessary, because generally the nature of the remedies actually sought will identify whether the application is for judicial review. Furthermore, in those cases where more rigorous scrutiny is required, going behind the form of the application and probing its substance, an analysis of what remedies the claimant is, in reality, pursuing will still play an important part in the exercise. The court will have to approach its task having firmly in mind the list set out in CPR 56.1(3), because that list of the principal judicial review remedies serves to indicate the shape of the concept of judicial review within CPR 56, and there is, in truth, little else to assist in the quest.”


Desiree was led by Justin Simon Q.C., former Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda