“Some key points for us: 1. Understanding the two stage vet, how the firms are selected and approved (for the various claim types) and how the individual cases are assessed 2. The processes and procedures to make sure from a regulatory piece we are happy i.e. what role does everyone play and do we need to confer any insurance status on Pure?”
“arising out of or in connection with any: “(a) trading or personal debt of the Insured; “(b) legal liability assumed or accepted by the Insured under any contract of [sc. or]agreement for the supply to, or use by the Insured of goods or services in the course of Professional Business, save that this Exclusion is not to apply to any civil liability in connection with the Insured’s use of or access to the HM Land Registry network …, other than an obligation to pay search fees or other charges for searches or services provided by HM Land Registry to the Insured; or (c) guarantee, indemnity or undertaking given by or on behalf of the Insured in connection with the provision of finance, property, assistance or other benefit or advantage directly or indirectly to the Insured.”
"Where is the damage? What are the issues?"
“PCSS order ATE their end. Proclaim fires task over to Claims side with the ATE Policy Number (PCSS Ref). Admin in claims then access ATE Portal and attach to case.”
‘My intention is to do’ so and so, and you may add this, ‘and I have accomplished that purpose by the provisions which follow’
“It is one thing for the court to effectuate the intention of the parties to the extent to which they may have, even imperfectly, expressed themselves, and another to add to the instrument all such covenants as upon a full consideration the court may deem fitting for completing the intentions of the parties, but which they, either purposely or unintentionally, have omitted.”
“There is another rule that the recital of an agreement does not create a covenant where there is an express covenant to be found in the witnessing part relating to the same subject matter.”
“It seems to me quite absurd that the wharfingers' right of recovery should be determined either by the form of the bank's letter of claim against the wharfingers or the form of the wharfingers' claim against the underwriters. In other words, in my judgment, the operation of the excess clause is determined by the facts which give rise to the claim and not by the form in which the claim is asserted.”
“We write to report that we may be subject to a claim of negligence by the executors and beneficiaries of the above estate the probate and administration of which our firm has been handling. The extent of the claim is not yet ascertained but may be very substantial and will in any event exceed H.K.$5m . The claim may arise out of possible fraud by one of our employees. A report of the possible fraud has already been made to the police.”
“It would be ludicrous for the estate to even think in terms, such as: ‘We have over 43 claims of money,’ or ‘We are claiming against Lo & Lo 43 times over’ instead of: ‘We have a claim against them to the extent of H.K.$50m .’”
'… Nevertheless, it seems to me ultimately to be inherent in the concept of aggregation ("arising out of one event") that a significant causal link is required. … A plurality of losses is to be regarded as a single aggregated loss if they can be sufficiently linked to a single unifying event by being causally connected with it. The aggregating function of such a clause is antagonistic to a weak or loose causal relationship between losses and the required unifying single event. This is the more easily seen by acknowledging that, once a merely weak causal connection is required, there is in principle no limit to the theoretical possibility of tracing back to the causes of causes. The question therefore in my judgment becomes: Is there one event which should be regarded as the cause of these losses so as to make it appropriate to regard these losses as constituting for the purposes of aggregation under this policy one loss?' 88. There is also usually a distinct requirement of lack of remoteness between the aggregating event and the losses. Thus in Caudle v Sharp at 394 Evans LJ, with whom Rose and Nourse LJJ agreed, said: '
'… Are the losses to be aggregated as all arising from one event? That question can only be answered by finding and considering all the relevant facts carefully, and then conducting an exercise of judgment. That exercise can be assisted by considering those facts not only globally and intuitively and by reference to the purpose of the clause, but also more analytically, or rather by reference to the various constituent elements of what makes up one single unifying event. It remains an exercise of judgment, not a reformulation of the clause to be construed and applied.'” See also §§ [53]-[54] of Various Eateries, confirming the need for a causal link and for the event not to be too remote. '… Nevertheless, it seems to me ultimately to be inherent in the concept of aggregation ("arising out of one event") that a significant causal link is required. … A plurality of losses is to be regarded as a single aggregated loss if they can be sufficiently linked to a single unifying event by being causally connected with it. The aggregating function of such a clause is antagonistic to a weak or loose causal relationship between losses and the required unifying single event. This is the more easily seen by acknowledging that, once a merely weak causal connection is required, there is in principle no limit to the theoretical possibility of tracing back to the causes of causes. The question therefore in my judgment becomes: Is there one event which should be regarded as the cause of these losses so as to make it appropriate to regard these losses as constituting for the purposes of aggregation under this policy one loss?'