R+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors

R+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA & Ors

There is no power under CPR 3.1(7) or CPR 40.12 to set aside the orders made by Moore-Bick J against the second and third defendants, as the orders reflected findings on the substantive merits and any challenge must be by appeal. The orders were not accidental slips, and the circumstances did not justify variation or revocation under CPR 3.1(7).

Parties
Claimant: R+V Versicherung AG; Defendant: Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA; Defendant: Reass France SARL; Defendant: Reass SARL; Defendant: Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy, Binding Authority, Slip Rule, Variation or Revocation of Orders, Constructive Trusts
Commercial Law Civil Procedure Conspiracy Binding Authority Slip Rule Variation or Revocation of Orders Constructive Trusts

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R+V Versicherung AG

Claimant

Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions SA

Defendant

Reass France SARL

Defendant

Reass SARL

Defendant

Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Post Judgment Application to Set Aside Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the orders against the second and third defendants should be set aside under CPR 3.1(7) or CPR 40.12
  2. 2 Whether the second and third defendants were properly found liable for conspiracy and sums due under the binders

Ratio Decidendi

There is no power under CPR 3.1(7) or CPR 40.12 to set aside the orders made by Moore-Bick J against the second and third defendants, as the orders reflected findings on the substantive merits and any challenge must be by appeal. The orders were not accidental slips, and the circumstances did not justify variation or revocation under CPR 3.1(7).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Second and third defendants' application to set aside orders dismissed
  • Judgment in favour of R+V against all defendants for £14,032,622.82 plus interest and ancillary relief