Author: MJM Limited

Land tax payments scrutinized on newly built properties… This civil case has been ongoing for several years concerning the owners (“the Banks”) and their property named “Gatewood” in Paget. The Banks disputed the annual rental value (“ARV”) which was allocated to their newly built home by the Land Valuation department. The two contentious point of law in this case were:

The UK Supreme Court has recently reached a decision regarding the appeals of both Pitt v Holt and Futter v Futter which refer to the nature of the Rule in Re Hastings-Bass deceased 1974. Hastings-Bass was a case that set the precedent whereby discretionary acts by trustees may be set aside if the decisions made had unintended consequences. The unintended consequences were usually unexpected tax liabilities. Historically the Rule has been used to set aside decisions made by trustees who have have accidentally failed to take into account relevant circumstances or where they have taken incorrect professional advice. As a consequence of the Rule the trustees and beneficiaries are re-set into the position they were in before entering the adverse transaction.

Before an insurance company pays out damages following an accident, one’s claim must be particularised fully. Such a claim will typically include all expenses incurred as a result of the accident, which may include damage to property and expenses for transportation. Hardip Singh v Rashed Yaqubi is a 2012 case wherein Mr. Singh sued Mr. Yaqubi for damages arising out of an accident in central London which involved Mr. Singh’s Rolls Royce. Mr. Singh, through his counsel, argued that the hire of the Rolls Royce was reasonable considering the type of work that he was in and the image that he had to maintain, elements of which included the perception of success.

Bermuda is now the epicentre of the catastrophe bond/insurance linked security world. With $7 billion of these securities now listed on the Bermuda Stock Exchange, the island can claim almost half the value of the global market. Catastrophe bonds (also known as cat bonds) are risk linked securities that transfer a specified set of risks from an Insurance company which acts as a sponsor to investors through the issue of cat bonds and the trading in derivatives based on the bond. They were created and first used in the mid 1990’s in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew and the Northridge earthquake and emerged from a need by insurance companies to alleviate some of the risk they would face if a major catastrophe occurred, which would incur damages that they could not cover by premiums and returns from investment using the premiums that they received. Typically an insurance company issues bonds through an investment bank which are then sold to investors. These bonds are inherently risky and are multi-year deals. If no catastrophe occurs, the insurance company pays a coupon to the investors who make a healthy return generally based on LIBOR plus between 3% and 20%. However if the catastrophe manifests itself the principal paid by the investors to purchase cat bond securities is forgiven and used by the sponsor to pay its claims to policy holders.

Questions of Causation frequently arise in many areas of the law, but causation is not a single, unvarying concept to be mechanically applied without regard to the context in which the question arises.

Lord Bingham in R v Kennedy [2007] UKHL 38

A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the brooding spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day, when a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes The Supreme Court of the United States 3rd ed 1936

The last ten years have seen the question of “but-for” causation brought into sharp focus in order to avoid the potential injustice to thousands of Mesothelioma victims who have contracted the disease and who now seek to establish a causal link between Mesothelioma and their exposure to asbestos during the course of their employment which may have taken place many years before. The central problem that has bedevilled such employer’s liability claims has been the difficulty in establishing when the disease was triggered.

Bermuda is Britain’s oldest overseas territory and the Privy Council in London is the final Court of Appeal from Decisions of the Court of Appeal in Bermuda. Further, the Supreme Court and Appeal Court of Bermuda are bound by decisions of the Privy Council in cases from all jurisdictions where the Privy Council is the final appellate court. It therefore pays to keep a close watch on Privy Council judgments. For example a judgment was recently delivered by Lord Neuberger on 23rd July, 2013 following a hearing in the case of Antigua Power Company Limited v The Attorney General of Antigua and Barbuda and others (285 KB PDF) [2013] UKPC 23 in which he delivered a withering attack on the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal for its delay in handling the first appeal.