Source: https://7kbw.co.uk/barrister/christopher-butcher-qc/
Timestamp: 2017-02-28 14:31:51
Document Index: 239231375

Matched Legal Cases: ['EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'UKSC ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ', 'EWCA ']

Christopher Butcher QC - 7KBW
A maximum of 4 twelve month pupillages are available per year. Applications should be made via the Pupillage Gateway 2017 season for pupillages commencing in September 2018 or (for deferred applications) commencing in September 2019. ClerksContact Us	"A real powerhouse in terms of intellect" "A total class act"
Chambers UK 2017 Christopher Butcher QC
cbutcher@7kbw.co.uk
Christopher Butcher QC is recognised as one of the country’s leading commercial silks.
His diverse range of expertise covers insurance and reinsurance, banking and finance, shipping and commodities, professional negligence, general commercial litigation, arbitration, jurisdiction and the conflict of laws, as well as credit and credit hire disputes. Described in the legal directories as a “tremendous” and “incredibly powerful” advocate, Christopher has in recent years presented cases to the Supreme Court, the House of Lords, the Privy Council, and the Court of Appeal, as well as the High Court. His presence has also been felt on the international stage in a number of significant hearings in jurisdictions including Bermuda, Singapore, and the Cayman Islands. With specialist knowledge of the area, Christopher is highly sought after in arbitration matters. He also accepts appointments as arbitrator in insurance and commercial issues. Christopher is a Recorder of the Crown Court and sits as a Deputy High Court Judge in the Commercial Court and Administrative Court.
Show Cases: Christopher’s practice in banking and finance covers a broad range of issues. He has particular experience with derivatives and it has been said that, “his knowledge of swaps cannot be surpassed.” He has managed a number of high-value banking disputes, including a claim for $200 million by Deutsche Bank and the litigation following the collapse of Barings Bank. He has been regularly called upon to advise on matters arising from the 2008 global financial crisis and has also given advice on D&O liability and potential US Securities Act exposures following the US subprime mortgage crisis. Recently his advice has been sought in a number of matters, including Credit Default Swaps, obligations under the CSA to the ISDA Agreement, and the enforcement of commercial guarantees. Christopher has also acted in relation to the incidence of liabilities as a result of “late trading” and “market timing” of US mutual funds. Additional work has included the disputes surrounding the funding of the Accident Group scheme, which involved defences under the Consumer Credit Act. He has also been successful in settling a series of cases involving claims for damages, by way of lost investment income, for late payment of principal sums due.
CIMC Raffles Offshore (Singapore) Ltd and Anor v Schahin Holding SA [2013] EWCA Civ 244 (Guarantee – Construction – Doctrine of Purview).
Deutsche Bank v Asia Pacific Broadband [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 619, [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 177 (jurisdictional disputes in relation to claim under a loan agreement).
Halifax Life v Equitable Life [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 528 (dispute as to payments to be made in relation to liability for unit linked and non-profit business).
Goshawk Dedicated 2 v Governor and Company of the Bank of Scotland [2006] 2 All ER 610 (funding of Accident Group; issues of unenforceability of loans by reason of Consumer Credit Act).
Barings plc v Coopers & Lybrand [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 566 (professional negligence suit against auditors arising from the collapse of Barings)
Credit Suisse First Boston v MLC [1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 767 (jurisdictional disputes arising in relation to claims arising from purchase of Russian bonds).
Ludgate v Citibank [1998] Lloyd’s Rep IR 221 (dispute as to amount of collateral which could be retained to support letters of credit).
British & Commonwealth Holdings v Barclays Bank [1996] 1 WLR 1 (claims arising from collapse of British & Commonwealth; whether claims were in respect of failure to redeem shares or financial assistance; effect of scheme of arrangement).
Show Cases: Many of Christopher’s cases concern commercial agreements and arrangements which do not fall within the categories dealt with above. He is often involved in actions considering the implications of insolvency, especially in relation to insurance, reinsurance and credit arrangements. He has appeared, for example, in a series of multi-faceted cases arising from the insolvency of T&N Limited which arose on the back of a mass of asbestos claims. Christopher’s general commercial cases have included litigation relating to the Buncefield Explosion of oil storage facilities in Hertfordshire; claims of corporate manslaughter in the Hatfield rail crash; successfully defending a claim seeking a finder’s fee for the £137m sale of the Monte Carlo Grand Hotel; and acting in a claim which sought to establish a causal link between radiation exposure and leukaemia in offspring. He is also extensively involved in cases involving credit hire arrangements, and legal issues arising from the underlying torts. He has appeared for the successful parties in a number of leading Court of Appeal cases in the area, including Bee v Jenson, Sayce v TNT, and Bent v Highways & Utilities. Christopher acted in the Court of Appeal over a costs dispute arising from a personal injury case centred on the dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. Christopher has also recently acted in relation to proceedings which have considered the interrelationship of the jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions in favour of foreign states with the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Blue Holdings v United States of America [2014] EWCA Civ 1291 (freezing injunction; s. 25 Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act; Proceeds of Crime Act)
Djibouti v Boreh [2013] EWHC 2393 (Comm) (Civil Code; jurisdiction of English courts; compensation)
W v Veolia [2011] EWHC 2020 (QB) (consumer hire agreements; vehicle hire charges; impecuniosity; insurance; damages; mitigation; subrogation)
Bent v Highways & Utilities [2011] EWCA Civ 1384 (car hire; contractual liability; consumer agreements; motor insurance; negligence; road traffic accidents)
Sayce v TNT (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA 1583 (car hire; road traffic accidents; mitigation; damages)
Shell UK Ltd v Total UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 180 (negligence; beneficial ownership; economic loss; indemnity clauses; interpretation)
Copley v Lawn [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 496 (car hire; motor insurance; damages; right to reject offer of replacement car)
Bee v Jenson (No.2) [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 221 (car hire charges; motor insurance; reasonableness; road traffic accidents; subrogation)
Aboualsaud v Aboukhater [2007] All ER(D) 107 (oral contracts; commission; agency; intention; sale of property)
Bee v Jenson (No.1) [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 451 (motor insurance policies; mitigation of loss; obligation to accept insurer’s choice)
Centre Re v Freakley [2006] 1 WLR 2863 (insolvency; subrogation; insurance; reinsurance)
HSBC Rail (UK) v Network Rail Infrastructure [2006] 1 WLR 643 (negligence; bailment; damage to goods; equipment leasing; insurance; damages; reversionary interests)
Freakley v Centre Re [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 264 (reinsurance; proposed settlement arrangements; asbestos)
Centre Re v Curzon Insurance [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 622, [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 303 (personal injury; asbestos; insurance; reinsurance)
Show Cases: Christopher was named Chambers and Partners Insurance Silk of the Year in 2008 and 2014, and was nominated for the same award in 2009 and 2013. Christopher has extensive experience in insurance and reinsurance litigation. He was heavily involved in the litigation concerning the Wellington Agreement; in the disputes between Lloyd’s Names and agents; in disputes arising from the LMX spirals and in relation to film finance; in the Eastern European shipbuilding disputes; and in litigation arising from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Christopher is currently acting in relation to several claims on Financial Institutions’ and D&O policies. He is also involved in a number of disputes relating to the implications of decisions in the UK and abroad as to liability and insurance coverage for diseases such as asbestosis, mesothelioma and silicosis. He is also acting in relation to disputes on the “Bermuda Form”. His recent cases have spanned a broad range of issues including political risk, trade disruption, professional indemnity, property damage and business interruption, goods in transit, and war risk insurances. In addition he has been extensively involved in on-going disputes relating to the writing and implications of BTE and ATE legal expenses insurance.
Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust v Federal Mogul and Others [2014] EWHC 2002 (Comm) (Eder J) (asbestos-related disease; declaratory orders; locus standi; privity of contract; reinsurance)
Teal Assurance Co Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2013] UKSC 57; [2013] 4 All E.R. 643 (Excesses; insurance cover; insurers' liabilities; reinsurance)
Coles and Others v Hetherton and Others [2013] Lloyd’s Rep IR 9 (Motor insurance; damaged vehicles; measure of damages; subrogation; insurers arranging repairs).
Melinda Holdings SA v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association [2011] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 141; [2011] EWHC 181 (Comm) Insurance (war risks); arrest and detention of a vessel by an Egyptian court was not “ordinary judicial process” and was covered by the insurance; sue and labour clause; constructive total loss.
Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Line v Steamship Mutual & HM Treasury [2010] EWHC 2661 (Comm) (Oil Pollution; Counter Terrorism Act; Financial Restrictions (Iran) Order; Effect on Club Cover for liabilities under Bunkers Convention; alleged frustration of contract).
Temple Legal Protection v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 544; [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 643 (ATE insurance; binding authorities; termination of binding authority).
Wasa v Lexington [2010] 1 AC 180; [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 510 (ambit of coverage under a reinsurance contract for losses falling under insurance but outside period of cover of reinsurance; US pollution liabilities).
Diab v Regent Insurance [2007] 1 WLR 797; [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 779 (acted for respondent insurers in Privy Council decision; denial of liability by insurer on ground unconnected with compliance with notification requirements does not relieve insured from complying with such requirements).
CGU v AstraZeneca Insurance [2006] Lloyd’s Rep IR 409 (reinsurance; proper law; by reference to what substantive law was the reinsured’s liability to the original insured to be determined).
King v Brandywine Reinsurance Co [2005] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 655; [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 554 (whether reinsurances responded to claims in respect of Exxon Valdez losses).
Centre Re v Curzon Insurance [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 303; [2004] Lloyd’s Rep 622 (Asbestos Liability insurance and reinsurnce of T&N; Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930).
O’Kane v Jones [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 174 (marine insurance; insurable interest; double insurance; contribution between insurers; avoidance).
Quinta Communications SA v Warrington [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 81 (loss of profits insurance; Michael Jackson concert cancelled because of Princess Diana’s death; “one show deductible”).
Structural Polymer Systems v Brown [2000] Lloyd’s Rep IR 64 (professional indemnity insurance; settlement of claim against insured without consent of insurers; whether the liability was covered under the policy).
Coven SpA v Hong Kong Chinese Insurance Co. [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 565 (marine cargo insurance; coverage for all risks; “paper shortage”; was a paper loss recoverable or was physical loss required).
Denby v English & Scottish Maritime Insurance Co [1998] Lloyd’s Rep IR 343 (reinsurance; aggregate extension clause).
Hiscox v Outhwaite (No. 3) [1991] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 524 (reinsurance; Wellington Agreement; “follow the settlements” obligations).
Show Cases: With his international expertise and experience, many of Christopher’s cases involve elements of choice of law and jurisdiction. Most recently was his Court of Appeal success in Blue Holdings v United States of America [2014] EWCA Civ 1291. His expert advice is often sought as to the effects of the EC Regulations governing the conflict of laws. He has also appeared in various leading cases in this area and continues to contribute towards academic commentary on the subject.
Show Cases: Christopher’s hallmark versatility extends to his significant practice in the area of professional negligence, managing a spectrum of claims involving solicitors, insurance brokers, accountants, and Lloyd’s agents. His work in the high-profile claims against Deloitte & Touche in the fallout of the collapse of Barings Bank has had wide-ranging implications regarding the very nature of auditing and the defences available to auditors. He has also previously played a major role in representing Lloyd’s Members and Managing Agents in the claims brought against them by Names at Lloyd’s. Recently Christopher has advised accountants on claims involving allegations of inadequate auditing. He has also advised on the position of accountants facing challenges by HMRC in relation to recommended tax arrangements. Christopher has been involved in acting both for and against insurance brokers, including recently in relation in claims that brokers owe continuing duties to advise and pay over sums held for clients. Christopher is also involved in major litigation concerning the obligations of Nominated Advisers in relation to admissions to AIM trading.
Equitas Limited v Walsham Bros & Co Ltd [2013] EWHC 3264 (Comm) (insurance brokers; duties; continuing duties; obligation to remit funds)
Newline v Morgan Cole [2008] PNLR 21 (claim against solicitors for negligent advice)
Barings v Coopers & Lybrand (trial) [2003] Lloyd’s Rep 566 (claim against auditors for allegedly negligent audit; causation; contributory negligence; relief from liability).
Barings v Coopers & Lybrand (No. 1) [2002] 2 BCLC 364 (scope of auditors’ duty).
HIH Casualty v Chase Manhattan Bank [2001] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 30 (ambit of duty of insurance brokers).
Henderson v Merrett [1995] 2 AC 145 (claims against Lloyd’s agents; landmark case in relation to duty of care in tort).
Show Cases: Christopher has acted in an array of shipping disputes and has “proved himself to be highly effective” in the field. In recent years he has built up a specialist expertise in shipbuilding projects. These disputes are invariably settled in arbitration and are therefore confidential, but a recent public decision was handed down by the High Court in CMA CMG v Hyndau Mipo Dockyard [2009] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 213.
- 1st Class Honours, Modern History, Oxford University - Diploma in Law, City University, Distinction - Diploma in European Community, King’s College London Directories
Christopher is recommended in the following practice areas: Insurance and Reinsurance, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Professional Negligence, Banking & Finance and General Commercial & Insurance, Aviation, Shipping & Commodities, Energy, Product Liability and shipping. The following extracts are taken from recent editions of Chambers & Partners, the Legal 500 and Who's Who Legal.
"A very clever and hard-working silk with exceptional cross-examination skills, who has a very incisive mind." Chambers UK 2017
"He is an excellent tactician." Chambers UK 2017
"A total class act and one of the leading insurance and reinsurance coverage specialists. He has an exceptional intellect and total command of the insurance field." Chambers UK 2017
"A highly intellectual advocate who will pursue something legally difficult and win." Chambers UK 2017
"He's an excellent advocate; he is authoritative and has great experience in insurance." Chambers UK 2017
Leading insurance silk and an "incredibly impressive individual" who is widely praised for his understanding of the field and his great standing at the Bar. Chambers UK 2017
"I find him a very careful and persuasive advocate, and a very good predictor of what the judge will think. He has a tremendously sharp intellect which can cut right through difficult issues." Chambers UK 2017
"A real powerhouse in terms of intellect." Chambers UK 2017
The “brilliant” Christopher Butcher QC is revered for his “professional” and “dedicated” practices. He is recognised this year for his “top-notch” work in the areas of insurance and reinsurance, and international trade and commodities. Who's Who Legal 2016
A ferocious cross-examiner. Legal 500 2016
He has a magnificent intellect and ability to give decisive, clear-cut opinions. Legal 500 2016
Consistently impressive - a prime counsel. Legal 500 2016
A superb practitioner and an excellent strategist, who always makes himself available. Legal 500 2016
A stonking trial advocate, whose vast experience is immensely valuable. Legal 500 2016
"Absolutely top quality." "Exceptionally clever." Chambers UK 2016
"A formidable opponent and clearly a very classy barrister." "Extremely bright and a very good advocate." Chambers UK 2016
"Very user-friendly, diligent and knowledgeable." "A really fine advocate who is very engaged in the detail of a case." Chambers UK 2016
"He is easy to work with and can always be relied upon. You will never see him outclassed." Chambers UK 2016
He is "amongst the top barristers for top-level insurance work." Chambers UK 2016
"A very bright chap who can handle extremely complex matters." Chambers UK 2016
A go-to QC for complex, technical issues; he has a huge brain and is very nice with it. Legal 500 2015
The go-to barrister on insurance matters in the Court of Appeal. Legal 500 2015
A leading individual at the Bar in this area. Legal 500 2015
He has a deep intellect and is very well prepared Legal 500 2015
His formidable intelligence allows him to process information at a ferocious pace Legal 500 2015
"His submissions are punchy and effective, and he's something of a force to be reckoned with." "He's very intelligent indeed." Chambers UK 2015
"He is unsurpassed in terms of his knowledge of reinsurance. He exudes confidence, knows the cases and is easy to work with." Chambers UK 2015
"intellectually formidable and a go-to silk for high-value, complex insurance disputes." Chambers UK 2015
"He seems to be a Terminator, to be quite honest. When he has a mission he is just going to do it." Chambers UK 2015
"He was so collaborative and very encouraging. He took our points and worked with us in formulating arguments. I found him to be extremely intelligent and efficient." Chambers UK 2015
"He is very good, clearly very clever and a good advocate." Chambers UK 2015
"He bent over backwards to ensure that we got the advice when we needed it." "He is a very intelligent guy." Chambers UK 2015
“An accomplished commercial litigator whose impressively broad-based practice sees him handle briefs spanning diverse areas such as insurance, finance and professional negligence.” Chambers UK 2014
"I've been extremely impressed by his advice, commercial approach and responsiveness." Chambers UK 2014
“His expertise encompasses all types of insurance and reinsurance matters, including disputes relating to financial institutions, professional negligence and shipping.” Chambers UK 2014
"He is seriously bright, provides clear and concise advice and is always on hand to help, however small the issue. He is brilliant." "He's very bright but also very charming with it." Chambers UK 2014
"He is smart and versatile, and is a tremendous advocate who gives good and dependable advice." Chambers UK 2014
“Regularly defends brokers and solicitors against professional negligence claims. Recently, he has been involved in a number of claims relating to the collapse of film finance schemes.” Chambers UK 2014
“An intellectually formidable practitioner and an adroit adviser across many practice areas. He is recognised for his market-leading insurance practice, and has proved himself to be highly effective in the associated area of shipping.” Chambers UK 2014
"He is a clever barrister who is excellent at identifying arguments and finding solutions." "He is phenomenally clever, very good with clients and a good choice for intellectually demanding cases." Chambers UK 2014
A "outstandingly good" silk Chambers UK 2013
"A powerhouse of a barrister," who is "undoubtedly excellent." Chambers UK 2013
A "frighteningly clever barrister, who is robust in court and user-friendly to the solicitor." Chambers UK 2013
He has an "in-depth knowledge of insurance matters and is always prepared to express his opinions clearly." Chambers UK 2013
"a daunting opponent” Chambers UK 2011
"fantastic intellect” Chambers UK 2011
"brain on legs” Chambers UK 2011
Continues to impress with his "intelligence, advocacy and direct approach” Chambers UK 2011
"He's a serious opponent - when he's on the other side you get into top gear as quickly as possible” Chambers UK 2011
"an incredibly nice fellow to work with” Chambers UK 2011
"startlingly brilliant” Chambers UK 2011
"That much more intelligent than the vast majority of people currently at the Bar” Chambers UK 2011
"Tremendous gravitas and considerable skill as an advocate” Chambers UK 2011
“brilliantly clever” Legal 500 2010
“astonishingly intelligent” Legal 500 2010
“a man of piercing intellect who lets nothing get past him.” Chambers UK 2010
Has “an excellent grip of the structure of a case and is never daunted by complexity.” Chambers UK 2010
“extremely good reputation.” Chambers UK 2010
“incisive and no –non-sense.” “totally reliable and gets on with the job in hand.” Chambers UK 2009
“ability to leave onlookers spellbound” “he just keeps getting better and better” Chambers UK 2009
“incredibly intelligent and indefatigable” Chambers UK 2009
“ranks among the most intelligent counsel when it comes to insurance and reinsurance-related work.” Chambers UK 2009
Shows “sheer intelligence” and clients are “fortunate” to engage his services. Chambers UK 2008
“always on top of the papers” and “presents exceptionally well in court.” Chambers UK 2008
“Bright in the most practical way, he’s your man if you need a technical issue straightened out.” One contributor enthused “deserves his reputation for having a planet-sized brain.” Chambers UK 2008
“Christopher Butcher QC is one of the first names we call on for insurance work.” Chambers UK 2008
“his knowledge of swaps cannot be surpassed.” “Clever and with ‘first rate advocacy’, his bright and intellectually rigorous methodology is widely respected. His appearance on many of the more important cases reflects … his ability on any matter that requires a good legal brain with a pinch of reality.” Chambers UK 2008
“incredibly powerful advocate.” Legal 500 2008
“hard-working, a powerful advocate.” Legal 500 2008 “a jack of all trades and a master of each and every one of them.” Chambers UK 2006
“very sound commercial judgment” generally regarded as “an exceptional silk.” Chambers UK 2006
the “excellent” Christopher Butcher QC is a “very robust advocate.” Chambers UK 2006
“excellent, a user-friendly leader.” Chambers UK 2006
[2017] EWCA Civ 25 On 25 January 2017, the Court of Appeal upheld Eder J’s ruling that a payment of money into escrow was not an insured loss under a programme of liability insurance. The payment was not an ascertainment of liability for the purpose of the rule in Post Office v. Norwich Union and […]
Court of Appeal agrees that email sent in context of mediation was not protected by without prejudice privilege as it fell within unambiguous impropriety exception. This appeal concerned whether a without prejudice communication sent in the context of a mediation fell within the exception to the “unambiguous impropriety” exception to without prejudice privilege. The appellants […]
The Court of Appeal had heard and dismissed the appeal from the judgment of Jay J on this insurance claim in relation to a fire at a warehouse. The Court of Appeal concluded that there had been a breach of a condition precedent to liability which related to the use and maintenance of the protections […]
Teal Assurance Co Ltd V W R Berkley Insurance Europe Ltd & Another
Mr. Justice Eder gave judgment on 23 April 2014 in Teal Assurance Co Ltd v. W R Berkley Insurance Europe Ltd & another [2015] EWHC 1000 (Comm). Christopher Butcher QC and Rebecca Sabben-Clare QC (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP) acted for Teal. The judgment considers a 2nd round of preliminary issues in this litigation. The […]
Renewable Power & Light v McCarthy Tetrault and Grant Thornton
In this case Renewable Power & Light (“RPL”) brought claims against former advisers in relation to its admission to trading on AIM, the alternative investment market of the London Stock Exchange, in 2006. One claim was against Grant Thornton which had acted as Nominated Adviser for the purposes of the AIM Rules, the contention being […]
The Court of Appeal has determined an appeal from the Commercial Court in this case relating to Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance plc’s (RSA’s) model for arranging repairs to its policyholders’ vehicles and for making subrogated claims against at fault drivers. That model had been attacked by other insurers, and managed litigation has been proceeding […]
Equitas Ltd v Walsham Brothers & Co. Ltd [2013] EWHC 3264 (Comm)
In Equitas v. Walsham Bros the Commercial Court ruled on a number of important legal issues concerning the duties owed by Lloyd’s brokers to pass on monies to reinsurers and reinsureds. The Court was also asked to consider and construe, for the first time, the complex agreements entered into across the Lloyd’s market as part […]
CIMC Raffles Offshore (Singapore) Limited and Yantai CIMC Raffles Offshore Limited v Schahin Holding [2013] EWCA Civ 644 Christopher Butcher Q.C. Marcus Mander acted in an appeal by a guarantor, Schahin Holding S.A., from a judgment of Blair J granting partial summary judgment to a creditor under a deed of guarantee and indemnity for approximately […]
These cases are both of topical interest, in the light of recent media interest as to the functioning of Motor Insurance, and of general significance in restating the principles for the assessment of damages in tort actions and the irrelevance of insurance arrangements. Cooke J was asked to determine three preliminary issues in 13 cases […]
Teal Assurance Co Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance
In this appeal the Court of Appeal considered the correct construction and operation of a “top and drop” insurance policy, and the order in which a tower of professional indemnity insurance was eroded by claims against the insured.
In these two appeals, which were heard together, the Court of Appeal summarised the principles to be applied in determining the basic hire rate recoverable by a claimant who could have afforded to hire a replacement car without credit terms. In Bent this resulted in the appeal being allowed and the amount awarded being increased. […]
This case involved the costs of the claim brought by a group of nearly 30,000 claimants in the Ivory Coast against Trafigura for personal injury as a result of the dumping of toxic waste in Abidjan in 2006. The action had been commenced in November 2006, with Leigh Day acting for the claimants. The claims […]
W v Veolia Environmental Services [2011] EWHC 2010 (QB)
The claimant’s Bentley was damaged by the negligence of the defendant. The claimant entered into a credit hire agreement for a replacement vehicle. That replacement was delivered to the claimant at his house, and he there signed the credit hire agreement and entered into an insurance whereby he insured himself against the liability to pay […]
The House of Lords handed down judgment in the conjoined appeals Wasa v Lexington and AGF v Lexington. All five of their Lordships held that the appeals should be allowed. This is a case which will have profound implications for the London and worldwide insurance and reinsurance markets. As Lord Collins said at beginning of […]
Wasa International Insurance Co Ltd v Lexington Insurance Co
[2010] 1 AC 180; [2009] 3 WLR 575; 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 508; [2008] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 510; [2007] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 604 Wasa, which led the argument on the appeal, was represented by Alistair Schaff QC and Siobán Healy. Christopher Butcher QC appeared for Lexington. – House of Lords overturns decision of Court of Appeal. […]
Diab v Regent Insurance Co Ltd
[2007] 1 WLR 797; [2006] Lloyd’s Rep. IR 779; [2006] 2 All ER (Comm) 704 Christopher Butcher QC led Sioban Healy successful respondent insurance company in establishing that there was no rule of law that a repudiation by an insurer of liability on a ground unconnected with compliance by the insured with the claim notification […]
“An intellectual giant, even by barrister standards, who conducts absolutely beautiful advocacy.”