Insights

For over 150 years, the common law has protected insurers against paying fraudulent claims. This position is founded on a clear public policy decision to deter fraud. Should the law take the same view, however, where the insured tells a lie to his insurer which bears no relevance to the underlying validity of the claim? This is the issue which came before the Supreme Court for the first time in the recent case of Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG [2016] UKSC 45.

The referendum decision in the UK to leave the EU sends the UK into unchartered waters and creates a period of uncertainty for those in the shipping industry. Although the exit date and precise terms of departure from the EU are not yet known, this briefing is intended to highlight some possible areas for change arising from that decision.

On 11th May, 2016 the Supreme Court issued its judgment ([2016] UKSC 20) in the GLOBAL SANTOSH dispute, bringing finality to a string of appeals from the original arbitration award.  This judgment clarifies the effect of arrests caused by the actions or omissions of time charterers’ sub-contractors. The Supreme Court rejected the view that anything that sub-charterers or receivers might have done which resulted in the arrest of the ship was the responsibility of the time charterer. A “nexus between the acts leading to the arrest and the performance of functions under the time charter” was required for clause 49 to apply.

In previous publications the importance of accurate estimating of costs has been highlighted. In order to provide increased certainty for Members and the Club, the Board is requiring the Managers to change the way in which suppliers bill for the services they provide.