We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
United Marine Aggregates Ltd v G.M.Welding &
Engineering Ltd & Anor [2012] EWHC 779
The claimant (UMA) had engaged the defendant (GM) to carry out
works at its plant which included welding. A fire occurred as a
result of these hot works. Court found that GM was not liable to
UMA for this fire as on the facts GM had acted with reasonable
skill and care when carrying out the works.
However, it was held that had GM been liable, their claim for an
indemnity from their insurers would have failed as they had
breached one of the conditions of their insurance in respect of hot
works, reminding of the importance of complying with
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.
On 24 April 2013 the DIFC Court of First Instance issued an important judgment accepting jurisdiction over a dispute between a DIFC-based reinsurer and an Abu Dhabi based insurance company.
The China Insurance Regulatory Commission promulgated the Notice on Relevant Issues regarding Investment and Shareholding of Limited Partnership Equity Investment Enterprises in Insurance Companies.
A discussion on whether a third party to a contract could obtain stay of legal proceedings against it and rely on arbitration agreement in the contract.
A discussion on a recent judgment of the High Court of New Zealand, which indicates how New Zealand courts will approach indemnity disputes associated with commercial property damage caused by the Christchurch earthquakes.
This case considered whether, where a liability policy contained an exclusion excluding liability arising under a contract, unless such liability would have attached in the absence of such a contract, and where there was a judgment finding the insured liable for breach of contract, that foreclosed the question as to whether there was also tortious liability that would fall within the terms of cover.
A recent Court of Appeal case, has fired a warning shot that the costs of preparation could be disallowed if skeleton arguments are not kept as concise as possible.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
