Reported at: [1997] C.L.C. 759

SUBSEQUENT HISTORY:  Affirmed by:  Society of Lloyd's v Leighs, [1997] C.L.C. 1398; [1997] 6 Re. L.R. 289; Times, Aug. 11, 1997; Independent, Oct. 6, 1997 (C.S.)
Case Comments: “Non-accepting Names must pay the Equitas premium.” 5 Int. I.L.R. 191-195 (1997) (7)
“Judgment paves way for Lloyd's to recover debts from non-accepting Names” 5 Int. I.L.R. 142-144 (1997)(5)

Summary

Subject: Insurance

Keywords: Agents; Reinsurance

Catchphrases: reinsurance; Lloyd's Names opposing plan; obligation to pay premiums

Abstract:  Following the Lloyd's reconstruction and renewal plan, “R & R”, certain liabilities were reinsured by Equitas and funded partly from premiums from the names. All names were reinsured, but those who had not agreed to the R & R refused to pay the premiums. Lloyd's sought summary judgment against them for the premiums due.

Summary: Held, granting summary judgment, that the defendants' managing agents and run off agents had the authority to enter into future reinsurance contracts on their behalf and such authority could not be withdrawn by the defendants giving notice to the agent or to Equitas. Each of the defendants was under an obligation to abide by the byelaws and resolutions of the council and so were parties to the Equitas reinsurance contract.

Judge:  Colman, J.

Counsel:  For SL: Gordon Pollock Q.C., R Jacobs and D Foxton.
For L: Romie Tager Q.C., C Orr and I Newman

Solicitor:  For SL: Freshfields. For L: Epstein Grower