General grounds for refusal meaning

In this issue: Cases and decisions Insurance types UK regulation EU regulation Cases tracker Dates for your diary New and updated content Daily and weekly news alerts LexTalk®Insurance: a Lexis®Nexis community Cases and decisions National House Building Council v Peabody Trust The Court of Appeal (Civil Division) rejected an appeal concerning the correct interpretation of Option 1 under an NHBC policy, in proceedings between Peabody (claimant/respondent) and NHBC (defendant/appellant). Under the policy, Peabody is insured where they ‘have to pay more’ than otherwise because the contractor becomes insolvent or commits fraud prior to practical completion. The court held that the cause of action arose not on the contractor’s (Vantage) insolvency, but at the point the claimant actually ‘had to pay more’ on account of that insolvency. It rejected NHBC’s contention that insolvency alone triggered its liability. It affirmed the first instance refusal to strike out the claim on limitation grounds. NHBC’s stance...

What are the practical implications of the case? The case offers significant clarification of the impartiality obligations under Article 41 of the Charter and confirms that substantive links between an expert and the pharmaceutical industry, for example consultancy arrangements or acting as principal investigator in clinical trials, could compromise such impartiality when assessing an application for a marketing authorisation concerning a potentially rival medicinal product, even where no demonstrable bias on the part of the expert can be shown. The judgment provides reassurance for industry in a context where a narrow reading of conflicts of interest has long been regarded as unsatisfactory and proof of actual bias is frequently hard to secure. However, the Court of Justice’s decision appears likely to create difficulties for the EMA and comparable bodies, particularly in rare diseases where there are few well qualified experts and most of these inevitably undertake advisory and clinical trial work for the pharmaceutical industry. What was the background? In 2018 D&A Pharma lodged an application with...

EUIPO v Neoperl AG Case C‑93/23 P What are the practical implications of this case? The Court of Justice confirmed boundaries on the General Court’s ability to amend rulings of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, a principle that may extend to other EU bodies’ determinations. Primary appraisal of facts and proof lies with the EUIPO Board of Appeal, not the General Court. The General Court cannot deploy its power to modify an outcome when that outcome was not issued by the EUIPO, as that would entail a first‑instance assessment of facts or evidence. It further clarifies that Article 7 of Regulation (EC) 207/2009 contains self‑standing grounds; they need not be applied sequentially, or even all addressed, to refuse registration of an applied‑for trade mark. In effect, its review cannot replace the Board’s initial factual appraisal or transform the proceedings into a first‑instance fact‑finding exercise. Equally, any single bar within Article 7 can justify refusal, without sequencing the grounds or analysing each subsection in turn. What was the...

This Practice Note reviews how courts in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA, Saudi, Saudi Arabia) recognise and enforce both local and international arbitral awards under Saudi law. The relevant legal framework The Saudi Arbitration Law, promulgated by Royal Decree No. M/34 on 16 April 2012 (the Arbitration Law), and grounded in the UNICTRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration. Under Article 2, it governs arbitrations seated in Saudi Arabia, and also proceedings conducted abroad where the parties have designated the Arbitration Law as the governing law of the arbitration. The Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law, issued pursuant to Cabinet of Ministers’ decision number 541 on 22 May 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Arbitration Law). The Enforcement Law, enacted by Royal Decree No. M/53 dated 30 July 2012 (the Enforcement Law). The Implementing Regulations of the Enforcement Law, issued by Cabinet of Ministers decision number 526 on 9 November 2017 (the Implementing Regulations of the Enforcement Law). Saudi Arabia’s 1994...

Practice Note This Practice Note consists of two strands created to help dispute resolution practitioners remain up to date with developments in case law that affect their field, or which influence civil litigation procedure more generally: selected forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court are highlighted below; see Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 summaries of significant appeal decisions in England and Wales (ie rulings of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court and, where appropriate, certain judgments of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Court of Justice of the European Union), and ECtHR, which we have covered; see: Key forthcoming appeal cases—2022 You can navigate this content using the table of contents in the left-hand margin. Alternatively, search this tracker using [CTRL]+[F]. This material is not intended to be a comprehensive register of every appeal or major decision relevant to dispute resolution practitioners. Key forthcoming appeals to the Supreme Court—2022 Tort and negligence ...

This Practice Note examines the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the ). The convention establishes a framework for enforcing international civil or commercial judgments. The Note outlines the convention’s background, its status, and the date on which it took effect. It then sets out the convention’s scope (Articles 1–3), together with the pathways for recognising judgments (Articles 4–7). It next addresses interpretation and application, including procedure and costs (Articles 8–15), and concludes with the general clauses on declarations, the convention’s operation in non-unified systems, and its relationship with other international instruments. For the text of this convention and other documents... Definitions applicant—a party applying for recognition or enforcement under the convention Hague Choice of Court Convention—HCCH Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements Contracting States—a State which has consented to be bound by the convention, whether or not the convention has entered into force for that State ...

Practice Note: Suitability grounds for refusal and cancellation of permission notes that, under the Immigration Rules, Part 9, para 320(7B): Unless an exemption applies, or the relevant re-entry ban has expired, any application made under a route within Parts 2–8, or under Appendix Armed Forces, must be refused where the person has previously breached UK immigration law by: overstaying, unless the overstay was 90 days or less (where it began before 6 April 2017) or 30 days or less (where it began on or after 6 April 2017) and, in either scenario, they left the UK of their own accord and not at public expense Where any of the above circumstances apply, any further application to re-enter the UK will be refused until the following re-entry ban has run: one year, if the individual departed the UK voluntarily and not at public expense—note that those refused entry at port fall within this category, provided they complied with the conditions set...