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.
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.
The 2015 POCA Amendment Act came into force on 1 January 2016 except for the operation of section 25 in relation to the Register of Directors, which was later brought into effect and operative so that the public Register of Directors must be completed by 31 December 2016.
Our property is ours to give. This belief forms the foundation of the common law principle of testamentary freedom - that by the terms of your last will & testament, you may leave whatever you choose to whomever you choose. In Bermuda, the Wills Act 1988 enshrines this principle at clause 5(1): “...every person may dispose, by will executed in accordance with this Act, of all real estate and all personal estate owned by him at the time of his death.”. Nevertheless, this freedom was never seen as entirely divorced from the context of family obligation, as was eloquently expressed by Chief Justice Cockburn in his judgment in the case of Banks v Goodfellow (1870) 5 LR QB 549, 563-565:
As we near the end of the year, it's good to review the bills that have been tabled and passed in the House of Assembly and Senate. This information can be found on the Bermuda Parliament website at www.parliament.bm.
More specifically, House bills going back to 2010 can be viewed here, where 2016 bills are listed here. Senate bills going back to 2010 can be found on this page, where 2016 bills are listed here.
Below is a snapshot of both:
With effect from 1st October 2016, the governmental departments responsible for the oversight of the aviation and shipping sectors became “quangos” newly titled as the Bermuda Civil Aviation Authority and the Bermuda Shipping and Maritime Authority.
The aim of granting such status is to boost revenue from the registration of both vessels and aircraft, by making Bermuda more competitive in the global shipping and aviation markets.
MJM has acquired several ancient deeds and local legal instruments dating back to the early days of the settlement of Bermuda. Andrew Martin examines the legal context of these documents and their relevance in the development of legal principle, and puts them in their social and historical context.
The employment tribunal system was established to provide an employee the regime in which to make a formal complaint that their employer has violated the Employment Act 2000 (the “Act”). The process was designed to encourage the parties to settle their differences wherever possible. If the parties cannot reach an agreement and there are reasonable grounds to suggest the employer may have violated the Act, the parties proceed to the Employment Tribunal for a hearing which lacks the sometimes daunting formalities of the courts. The trouble with the process in Bermuda is that over the course of the last several years, the Act has been interpreted in such a way as to limit the role of the Employment Inspectors, pushing many, if not all complaints, through to the Employment Tribunal. This erodes important principles of justice and the pendulum has swung so far toward due process for the employee that parties are no longer on equal footing.