Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 10 March 2015

Welcome to the ninth edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2015.

These updates are aimed at keeping you up to speed and informed of the latest developments in caselaw relevant to your practice. Please follow this link for further details of the following recent cases:

This week's caselaw

Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish Limited Clyde & Co wins a Supreme Court case which determined the scope of the common design principle. Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management The Court of Appeal determines how to calculate the basic hire rate under a credit hire agreement for a replacement car. JSC Mezhdunarodniy Bank v Pugachev The Court of Appeal orders disclosure in relation to a freezing order and considers a cross-undertaking from a liquidator. Davis Solicitors v Raja A decision on the need to file an appeal bundle, even though a trial bundle contained the same documents.

Other news

Our employment team summarises a consultation paper on new whistleblowing rules.

New court fees come into effect.

Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish Limited

Supreme Court finds that parties were not joint tortfeasors

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/10.html

Clyde & Co (Michelle Crorie, Erina Kawai and Wynne Lawrence) for the winning appellant. Summary kindly supplied by Wynne Lawrence.

In June 2010, Fish & Fish Limited, a fish farm operator based in Malta, was transporting live Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea. On 17 June 2010 divers from the vessel "STEVE IRWIN" entered the water and cut cages containing the tuna as part of a campaign known as Operation Blue Rage. The tuna escaped. Sea Shepherd UK ("SSUK") and two US-based defendants - Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ("SSCS") and Mr Paul Watson - were sued for the value of the tuna. Jurisdiction against all Defendants was sought based upon SSUK's alleged involvement.

There was a trial of a preliminary issue as to whether SSUK was liable for the acts of those involved in the incident on the basis of Paul Watson's role as both Master of the vessel at the relevant time and also director of SSUK, SSUK's legal ownership of the vessel involved and being joint tortfeasors pursuant to the doctrine of common design. At first instance, Hamblen J rejected all such arguments, accepting that Paul Watson was operating at all times on behalf of SSCS, that SSCS was the beneficial owner of the vessel and did not require SSUK's authority to use the vessel, and that the steps taken by SSUK in support of the campaign were minimal such that it was not liable under the doctrine of common design. The Court of Appeal reversed this judgment in part, holding that SSUK...