Author: Andrew A. Martin

Andrew A. Martin

The fundamental principles of the law of meetings are sometimes over-looked in the modern climate of unanimous written shareholder resolutions, comprehensive retrospective ratifications, and the liberal application of the “Duomatic principle”. The decision in East Asia Company Limited -v- PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo in the Bermuda Court of Appeal provides a salutary reminder that the devil is always in the details.

Andrew A. Martin
It is always reassuring when a decision of the court validates and confirms the adage that the law is largely just “common sense with knobs on” (in the words of Lord Sumption). The loser in a recent injunction case wanted to be able to rely upon privileged information contained in the bill of costs submitted by the winner, and to use that information against the winner in the arbitration proceedings that were pending between the parties. This is pretty outrageous, and one would readily expect that this would not be permissible.  It isn’t.

Andrew A. Martin
In a recent Supreme Court decision the Chief Justice has made an important ruling with potentially wide implications. The case concerns the time limit for bringing a claim in negligence against a party with whom the claimant is also in a contractual relationship. The decision is of particular interest to Lawyers, Accountants, Architects, Doctors, and Surveyors (the “LADS”) but also anyone else who makes their living by providing professional advice to clients. The effect of the decision is that a claim can be brought against one of the LADS (or other professional) in negligence independently from any claim for (negligent) breach of contract. The time limit for bringing a claim in contract and negligence is six years, but the date on which the time starts running for each type of claim may differ significantly.

Andrew A. Martin
In an important decision in November 2016, the Insurance Appeals Tribunal (the “IAT”) published in the press the text of its decision in relation to the jurisdiction to award costs in an appeal from a regulatory decision and appeal to the IAT under the Insurance Act 1978 (the “Act”). Normally in civil litigation the rule is that costs follow the event, and the substantial winner is entitled to an award of costs representing the costs reasonably incurred in the prosecution or defence of the proceedings. The issue arose after the unsuccessful appeal of a party who had been sanctioned by the Insurance Tribunal as to whether the same general rule applied under the statutory formula , which is worded in a wider and more permissive way, allowing the IAT the power to award costs as it “thinks fit” under section 44 D (1) of the Act.

Andrew A. Martin
This Act was passed in the first quarter of 2016 but has not yet become effective. It is a lengthy Act with a number of separate and detailed statutory mechanisms which work in conjunction with one another. The purpose of the Act is to address a situation where all or part of a bank’s business encounters financial difficulty or is likely to encounter such difficulty. The Act seeks to provide a mechanism for enabling the orderly transfer of the assets of a distressed bank, and the protection of deposit holders’ interests in keeping with international standards.