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




Laura Collignon and Nigel Poole QC publish an article on the calculation of future loss of earnings in the Journal of Personal Injury Law (issue 1 of 2017). Except in the most serious injury claims, future loss of earnings will usually be the largest head of claim. Laura was junior counsel in the leading case of Billett v MOD [2015] EWCA Civ 773. The court in Billett considered the principles applicable to the calculation of future loss of earnings where the claimant is disabled as a result of the injury sustained in the accident. The article discusses these issues, in particular the definition of disability and the application of the disabled reduction factors in Ogden Tables A to D.




Manus Egan successfully represents Equity in defending a claim for an injunction to enforce a restrictive covenant against a Michael Jackson tribute act.  The case was won by using the equitable defence of laches.