UK: Weekly Update: A Summary of Recent Developments in Insurance, Reinsurance and Litigation Law - 38/10

Last Updated: 19 October 2010
Article by Nigel Brook

THIS WEEK'S CASELAW

Employers' Liability Insurance "Trigger" Litigation

Whether cover for mesothelioma claims under EL policies triggered by exposure or onset of disease

http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1096.html&query=title+(+trigger+and+litigation+)&method=boolean

This is the appeal from the decision of Burton J reported in Weekly Update 46/08. The underlying issue is whether the correct employers' liability policy to respond to mesothelioma claims is the one in place when the asbestos dust was first inhaled or the one in place when the onset of the disease took place (in many cases, the onset of disease takes place up to 35 years after inhalation). The particular policy wordings in question differ slightly but, broadly, they provided cover for "injury sustained" or "disease contracted" during the policy period.

At first instance, Burton J found that there was no injury at the date of inhalation. However, taking into account the factual matrix of the case, he concluded that the policies had to be construed as meaning that injury was sustained when it was caused (ie at the date of inhalation). Equally, he construed that disease was contracted when it was caused. The relevant insurers' appealed and the Court of Appeal has now found as follows:

  1. Mesothelioma is not an "injury" (and injury is not "sustained") until its onset. The Court of Appeal reached this conclusion, on the basis that they were bound by the earlier Court of Appeal decision of Bolton MBC v MMI [2006] (concerning mesothelioma in relation to a public liability policy). However, although Rix LJ did not say that Bolton was wrongly decided, he did indicate that, had he not been bound by precedent, he would have preferred the view that, once mesothelioma develops, it is the risk of mesothelioma created by the exposure which is the injury. Burnton LJ, however, found Bolton convincing.

    However, both Rix LJ and Burnton LJ (Smith LJ dissenting) rejected the judge's decision that something had gone wrong with the language and that this finding would be in conflict with the commercial purpose of EL insurance. Accordingly, injury was not sustained at the date of inhalation and the appellants (with this policy wording) won on this point.
  2. However, all 3 Lords Justices agreed (Burnton LJ with hesitation) that "disease contracted" referred to the time of the disease's causal origins (ie the date of exposure) (Rix LJ opining that the commercial purpose of the policy should prevail on this issue and Burton LJ opining that little, if any, assistance was to be gained by referring to the commercial purpose of the the policy). Accordingly, the appellants (with this policy wording) lost on this point.
  3. One further argument was that the wordings only applied to employees in the course of their employment and did not apply to ex-employees. At first instance the judge held that this point favoured a construction that cover was intended to be the date of causation in all cases. Smith LJ agreed with the judge, Rix LJ agreed that the wordings did not apply to ex-employees but felt that that did not point to a causation trigger, and Burnton LJ held that (certain) wordings did apply to ex-employees.

Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court on all the above issues has been granted.

COMMENT: From a practical viewpoint, it is arguable that linking cover to the date of onset (for injury sustained wording) is unsatisfactory. Whereas the date of causation can be fixed with relative certainty, victims will often only learn that they are suffering from mesothelioma once they have started to experience symptoms. Onset will usually be "around 5 years" before manifestation but (retrospectively) determining the exact date of onset will be almost impossible in most cases. As a result of this, Burton J suggested the adoption of a prima facie rule of 5 years before manifestation, but this issue was not argued on appeal. More importantly, though, where an employer has become insolvent or is no longer in business, there will be no policy in place at the time of onset of mesothelioma. It might be expected that the Supreme Court and/or government will not favour an approach which leaves victims without any redress against an employer/insurer.

Swindon & Anor v Quinn Insurance Ltd

When did a dispute arise between an insured and insurer/whether an insurer must highlight onerous terms

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2010/2448.html

General Condition 16 of a liability policy provided that any dispute between the insured and the insurer on the insurer's liability in respect of a claim must be referred to arbitration within 9 months of the dispute arising (failing which, the claim shall be deemed to have been abandoned). The insurer denied liability on the grounds that the insured had breached certain policy conditions. The insured was subsequently found liable to a third party (and shortly afterwards went into voluntary liquidation, resulting in a claim against the insurer under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 1930.

The main issue in the case was when the dispute between the insured and the insurer arose (and hence whether the 9 month deadline to commence arbitration had expired yet). The claimants argued that a dispute could not have arisen until the insured's liability to the third party had been established. Edwards-Stuart J held as follows:

  1. Reference to a "claim" in General Condition 16 was to a claim by the insured under the policy (and not a claim by a third party). Post Office v Norwich Union [1967] establishes that until the liability of the insured has been established, and the amount of that liability has been ascertained, an insured cannot sue its insurer for a particular sum of money. However, that does not always prevent an insured from seeking a declaration that the insurer is in breach of contract before liability has been ascertained. That is because the insurer will often be in breach of a policy obligation - for example, the policy might require the insurer to consider whether or not to conduct the defence of a third party claim. In this case, as soon as the insurer notified the insured that it was refusing indemnity, a dispute had arisen and that dispute should have been referred to arbitration within 9 months.
  2. General Condition 16 had been incorporated as a term of the policy. "Cases on the incorporation of terms....must be approached with some care in the context of an insurance policy". It is well-known that commercial insurance policies contain many detailed requirements: "Whether or not he has read them, any reasonable businessman can be expected to know that his policy will contain many such detailed provisions". Nor was General Condition 16 unduly onerous. Although it is clearly much shorter than the statutory 6 year limitation period, "9 months is a reasonably generous time within which to explore the merits of any dispute that has arisen". Nor was the judge persuaded that an insurer should draw an insured's attention to every term in a commercial insurance policy which might prove onerous (apart from the duty to notify a claim within a particular period). To impose such a duty "could lead to endless disputes about whether such notification had been adequate. It would simply provide kindling for claims".
  3. The judge doubted whether he had jurisdiction to extend time to begin arbitral proceedings under section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996, since it appeared that the policy was governed by Irish law and that the seat of any potential arbitration under General Condition 16 would be Ireland. He nevertheless expressed his view that (had he had jurisdiction) he would not have extended time. In the absence of unusual circumstances, the conduct of the party resisting the application under section 12 must have been such as to have in some way caused or contributed to the failure of the applicant to comply with the time bar. In this case, there was no obligation on the insurer to advise that time was about to expire.
  4. Paragraph 7.3.5 of ICOB (now ICOBS paragraph 8.1.1) referred to guidance to help an insured make a claim under the policy. The judge said that he did not believe this paragraph applied where an insurer has rejected the claim (rightly or wrongly). Even if that was wrong, the paragraph did not require the insurer to alert the insured to the existence of a time bar (such as the one in General Condition 16): "That time bar applies to the time for referring any dispute to arbitration once a dispute has arisen in relation to the insurer's liability in respect of a claim: it is not a period within which the insured must make his claim".

COMMENT: In Post Office, the insurers had not sought to deny liability. Instead, they argued that the claim for indemnity under the policy was premature. However, this case confirms that where an insurer repudiates liability, the insured can bring a claim for a declaration against its insurer even before it has been ordered to pay anything to a third party (and thus seek to obtain (if the policy allows it) indemnity for any defence costs incurred in defending the third party claim). Hence the limitation period in such circumstances begins to run from the date when the insured has been notified that the insurer will not pay the claim.

Joseph Fielding v Aviva

Fraudulent claims, non-disclosure, moral hazard and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974

An insurer denied liability to indemnify the insured following a fire at its commercial premises on the basis that the insured had (1) made an earlier fraudulent claim (during the currency of the policy); (2) failed to disclose at inception that it had made a fraudulent claim to a prior insurer; and (3) failed to disclose at inception that it had made misrepresentations to other insurers in the past. Much of the case therefore turns on the particular facts and the insurer was able to prove its allegations. Here are the main points of the case:

  1. The policy contained a condition which gave the insurer the option of avoiding the policy from either inception or the date of the claim (or of avoiding the claim alone) in the event of a fraudulent or intentionally exaggerated claim. The judge, Waksman QC, rejected an argument by the insured that the condition did not apply where the insured could have made a lesser claim in a non-fraudulent manner. Even if the condition did not apply, and the insured had to rely on fraud at common law instead, it was sufficient that the fraud here was substantial and the size of the genuine claim was irrelevant. The judge also rejected that a proportionality requirement should be introduced (and any observations to the contrary by Staughton LJ in Orakpo v Barclays [1995] were a minority (and obiter) view).

    The policy condition also meant that the insurer did not need to prove reliance and that it could also avoid the policy and recoup monies paid out on a first (honest) fire claim (even though the insurer conceded that this would not have been the position at common law. It is worth noting, though, that the judge highlighted that Mance LJ's observations in Axa v Gottlieb [2005] that a fraudulent claim should not have any retrospective effect on earlier honest claims were only obiter).
  2. As for the non-disclosure argument, Waksman QC said that materiality must be considered "in the round" and that "it is the full picture which has to be assessed". He rejected an argument that if an initial false statement would have been immaterial to a prior insurer, then it should be removed from the picture altogether. Furthermore, if there was a moral hazard in insuring this insured, that was "unlikely to be something which can be cured by the imposition of a further condition on the policy".
  3. The insured also argued that the insurer could not rely on false statements about a previous conviction in light of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. That Act provides that questions seeking information about a person's previous convictions shall be treated as not applying to spent convictions (section 4(2)) and "any obligation imposed on any person by any rule of law or by the provisions of any agreement...to disclose any matters .....shall not extend to requiring him to disclose a spent conviction" (section 4(3)).

The judge held that section 4(2) did not apply because no express question about previous convictions had been asked (notwithstanding that the insured was under a general duty to disclose). As for section 4(3), the judge agreed that the obligation on the insured to make disclosure to the insurer of all material facts was a duty imposed by a rule of law or agreement. However, the judge said that the section should not be "so broadly interpreted" and the restriction on the duty of disclosure which it imposes "applies where its direct object is the spent conviction". So the insured was under no duty to disclose the fact of a previous (spent) conviction (even if it was otherwise material).

However, in this case, the insurer's argument about non-disclosure related to the false statement to a prior insurer that the insured's director had no convictions at a time when that conviction was not spent. What section 4(3) could not outlaw "is the duty to disclose the making of false statements if material to the present insurance. A string of lies to previous insurers, for example, should be disclosed". Even if the insured was under no duty to disclose what the false statement was about to the current insurer (because the conviction was spent), it was likely that that insurer would have refused to write the risk. Accordingly, the insurer was under no liability to pay the insured.

BBGP Managing General Partner & Ors v Babcock & Brown Global Partners

Meaning of a "client" for legal advice privilege/loss of confidentiality/joint retainers/the iniquity principle

http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/2176.html&query=babcock&method=boolean

B&B Group established "Global", a limited partnership, which was managed by a general managing partner, "General" (a company owned by B&B Group). Disputes arose between B&B Group and Global, resulting in the removal of General as the manager of Global. General was required to transfer Global's documents (stored in digital form on the B&B Group database) to the new manager. Some of these documents contained legal advice from a firm of solicitors and General therefore sought guidance from the court as to whether those documents were privileged. The facts of the case are complicated (due to the nature of various disputes which arose) but the main points can be summarised as follows:

  1. Who was the solicitors' client? In the case of Three Rivers (No.5)[2003], the Court of Appeal ruled, broadly, that not all officers and employees within a company should be treated as the "client" for the purposes of legal advice privilege. Only those employees within the organisation who are dealing with the matter on which the lawyer is giving advice will be the "client". In this case, legal advice was passed to General (although it was copied in to some of the partners of Global too) and it was therefore argued that Global was not the client of the solicitors. Norris J rejected that argument. The solicitors' client was Global (ie each of the partners in the firm), acting by its agent General: "General was undoubtedly the party with whom the contract of retainer was entered because it alone had authority within Global to enter into relations with third parties. But that does not mean that it alone was the client. It entered into the contract as agent for and on behalf of Global, not in its own right in its own interest". Furthermore, the authorities also establish that privilege cannot be asserted as between partners in relation to any documents concerning the partnership's affairs: Re Pickering [1883].
  2. Mr Hanson was an employee of B&B Group who was seconded to General and was its effective executive director. He communicated with the solicitors through his B&B Group email accounts and B&B Group was expressly entitled under Mr Hanson's employment contract to examine those communications. Accordingly, it was argued that the communications had lost their confidentiality and hence were no longer privileged. Norris J rejected that argument too. The starting point was the nature of the matter communicated and not the manner of the communication. There was nothing to indicate, on the facts, that the solicitors were aware that B&B Group had the right to examine emails sent by Mr Hanson. Just because Mr Hanson could not assert a right to privacy against his employer, it did not mean that General could not prevent B&B Group from using confidential information for its own purposes.
  3. It was accepted by the judge that where a solicitor accepts a joint retainer, the original joint interest is not destroyed by a subsequent disagreement between the parties. Also, one client cannot insist against the other that legal professional privilege attaches to any communications passing between the solicitor and that client during the retainer (there was no separate and exclusive retainer here between the solicitors and some only of the joint clients and there was no separate (and conflicting) agency between General and another third party).
  4. Norris J also held that "the right to confidentiality and privilege is a joint right of all the individual clients of [the solicitors]. No one partner can waive it".The one exception to this principle though was that General may disclose the material to its direct shareholder, because the shareholder is entitled to see all documents obtained by a company in the course of the administration of its affairs, including legal advice (provided that it was not obtained in response to a potential claim by the shareholder). However, the direct shareholder could not in turn share the material with its own shareholders. The judge reached that decision on policy rather than principle: "But I see no reason to extend the entrenchment upon the basic rule of privilege all the way up the chain of holding companies notwithstanding the steady dilution of that common interest".
  5. A further argument which was raised was that Global could not claim privilege over materials seen by General because of the iniquity principle - namely, that advice sought or given for the purpose of effecting iniquity is not privileged. The wrongdoer here was Mr Hanson. The judge accepted that the conduct of which he was accused (broadly, secretly preferring the interests of a third party over General's interests) was sufficient to engage the iniquity principle. Personal advantage was not a necessary element of "fraud". Furthermore, an innocent client may lose privilege even if it is a third party who has the iniquitous intention. The judge concluded that Global could not claim privilege because of the iniquity principle (at least up until the date when General discovered Mr Hanson's alleged fraud). (In reaching his conclusion, the judge also held that exceptional circumstances are required before a court will look at privileged material (which is not available to the other party) when deciding whether or not privilege should be lost because of the iniquity principle).

Prudential PLC & Anor v Special Commissioner of Income Tax & Anor

Whether legal advice privilege should be extended to non-lawyers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1094.html

The claimant company was served with statutory notices requiring the production of certain documents. It sought to argue that it did not have to disclose documents by which it had sought or received legal advice on tax matters from a firm of accountants. The issue in the case was therefore whether legal advice privilege covers communications with an accountant (and not just a lawyer) when the accountant is giving legal advice. At first instance the judge ruled that it does not and the Court of Appeal has now unanimously dismissed the appeal from that decision.

The claimant had sought to argue that Three Rivers (No.6) [2004] (which established that only advice given in a legal context will qualify for legal advice privilege) demonstrates that the determining factor for the privilege is not the status of the adviser but the nature of the advice. That argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal - Three Rivers had not discussed the issue of whether a non-lawyer could qualify for the privilege too. Lloyd LJ (giving the leading judgment) held that he was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Wilden Pump v Fusfeld [1985], which held that at common law, legal professional privilege applies only in relation to advice by lawyers (ie members of the legal professions of England and Wales and, by extension, foreign legal professions). Even if he was not so bound, he would have concluded that it was not open to the courts to extend the privilege to non-lawyers: "It is of the essence of the rule that it should be clear and certain in its application, since it is not the subject of any ad hoc balancing exercise but is, to all extents and purposes, absolute".

Serious questions as to the scope of the rule would arise if it was applied to accountants (who are not governed by one particular professional body). There is no restriction on a person setting himself up as an accountant and giving out advice. Nor could the claimant derive any assistance from the clear acceptance that the exercise of the right of privileged communication with a lawyer is protected by Article 8 of the ECHR. The Court of Appeal concluded that it is a matter for Parliament (and not the courts) whether the privilege is to be extended further.

Broda Agro Trade v Alfred C Toepfer International

The meaning of taking part in arbitral proceedings under section 72 of the Arbitration Act 1996

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1100.html

Section 72 of the Arbitration Act provides that a person alleged to be a party to arbitral proceedings but who takes no part in the proceedings may question (inter alia) whether there is a valid arbitration agreement by court proceedings. In this case, the claimant had (arguably) taken no part in the proceedings in which the tribunal decided whether it had substantive jurisdiction. It was only after the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction that the claimant took part in the proceedings on the merits of the case. The claimant sought to argue that it had not "taken part" for the purpose of section 72 because that section refers only to proceedings concerning jurisdiction (and not proceedings on the merits of the case). In Weekly Update 48/09 we reported the first instance decision in this case, whereby the judge rejected the claimant's argument.

The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal from that decision. A person who considers that he has not entered into an arbitration agreement can ignore the proceedings and claim relief from the court. If he does take part, he must apply under section 67 to challenge an award on jurisdiction. Section 72 is only concerned with jurisdictional issues because it is only in relation to such issues that the court has unqualified jurisdiction (a decision by a tribunal that it has jurisdiction is not binding on a court. In contrast, once a tribunal rules on the merits of the case, in the absence of serious irregularity, the parties are bound by the tribunal's findings of fact and have only a limited right to appeal points of law).

Nor did Article 6 of the ECHR (which entitles everyone to a fair and public hearing) help the claimant. It had the right to challenge jurisdiction under section 67.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeal was not required to decide whether the claimant had in fact taken part in the proceedings on substantive jurisdiction. It did, however, note that: "It may be difficult to distinguish between a letter that does no more than inform the arbitral tribunal, as a matter of courtesy, that the respondent does not accept its jurisdiction, and a submission that it has no jurisdiction."

The Court of Appeal also held that the judge had not erred in refusing to extend the 28- day deadline under section 67. Considerable delay had been caused by the claimant's failure to seek advice from an English lawyer.

Oceanconnect v Angara Maritime

Whether court should have granted anti-suit injunction in maritime case/construction of jurisdiction clause

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1050.html

A dispute arose between the parties and the appellants arrested a vessel owned by the respondent. An escrow agreement was then entered into between the parties and the vessel was released. The escrow agreement provided for terms of security and that it would be governed by, and construed in accordance with, English law "and any dispute arising hereunder or relating hereto or arising in connection herewith shall be referred to the exclusive jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales". Angara then commenced proceedings in England for negative declaratory relief. The appellant the obtained a warrant for the vessel's arrest in Louisiana, in order to found jurisdiction for a maritime lien claim in the US. The respondent obtained an anti-suit injunction and the appellant appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal for the following reasons:

  1. The jurisdiction clause in the escrow agreement did not legislate for the jurisdiction in which the underlying dispute was to be heard. Although it was capable of being read in that way, it was not to be read "literally". The escrow agreement was intended to secure the release of the vessel as quickly as possible and the parties had left open where the claim itself was to be determined. Of crucial importance was the fact that the appellant had a relatively simple claim for a US maritime lien and it was impossible that they would have given up that claim by agreeing to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.
  2. It was not vexatious or oppressive for appellant to pursue the US proceedings. The US maritime lien was clearly important to appellant and it was bound to fail in England, whereas it had a strong chance of success in the US. It would be against the interests of justice to doom that claim to fail.

Dhamija & Anor v Sunningdale Joineries

Duties of quantity surveyors in relation to defective works - of possible interest to professional indemnity insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2010/2396.html

Quantity surveyors applied to strike out a claim against them. The claim alleged that they owed the claimant homeowners an implied duty "to only value work that had been properly executed by the contractor and was not obviously defective". There was no written or oral contract between the parties - instead there was a contract evidenced by certain letters and the parties' subsequent conduct. Coulson J agreed that there was an implied term in the contract that the surveyors would act with the reasonable skill and care of ordinarily competent and experienced quantity surveyors when valuing the works properly executed for the purposes of the interim certificates. However, there was no positive obligation not to value work which was "obviously defective". A textbook passage which suggested that, where a quantity surveyor notices defective work, he should bring this to the architect's attention, was wrong. It is clear from the case of Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmondson [1971] that the architects must instead inform the quantity surveyors of any defects. A quantity surveyor is not liable for quality as well as quantities.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Nigel Brook
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions