Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Retrocession

Legal area

Court

6 Jun 2006

ROBIN HARGREAVES ON HIS OWN BEHALF ON BEHALF OF THOSE LLOYDS\' SYNDICATES LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE TO THE WRIT OF SUMMONS v. TAIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD

Citation

ROBIN HARGREAVES ON HIS OWN BEHALF ON BEHALF OF THOSE LLOYDS\' SYNDICATES LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE TO THE WRIT OF SUMMONS v. TAIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL27/2005

The plaintiff failed to show that Hong Kong was clearly the appropriate forum because the putative proper law of the contract is Taiwanese law and the central disputed issues require application of Taiwanese insurance law and the distinctive Taiwanese internal co-insurance practice; accordingly the ex parte leave to serve out was set aside.
6 Apr 1995

MERCANTILE MUTUAL HOLDINGS LTD. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.

Citation

MERCANTILE MUTUAL HOLDINGS LTD. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/1994

Section 132 of the Financial Services Act 1986 applies retrospectively to save pre-1987 reinsurance from being void for lack of UK authorisation; in absence of a claims co-operation clause the reinsurance must follow the insurer's settlements so the claims were recoverable; the non-disclosure and fiduciary participation grounds did not disclose triable issues and leave to defend could properly be confined to the illegality point which failed.
16 Jun 1989

INSURANCE CO OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO AND ANOTHER

Citation

INSURANCE CO OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV8/1989

The slips must be construed in the factual matrix of London market practice using market evidence; slip C on its face (and in market practice) represented a percentage of 100% of the limits stated (one‑third up to FF7.5m) making Grand Union liable on the retrocession; market evidence was admissible; under the follow settlements clause the reinsurer bears the onus of proving a settlement was outside the reinsurance or that the insurer did not act honestly or take proper businesslike steps.
22 Nov 1988

INSURANCE CO OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

INSURANCE CO OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL69/1986

The Court held ICSP entitled to indemnity under the retrocession slips: the broker presented the disputed documents and Grand Union was aware it was retrocession; the written lines on the slips meant the stated percentages of the slip limits (not percentages of ICSP's later-subscribed lines); the term "renovation" covered the works performed; under a follow the settlements clause reinsurers must indemnify settlements that fall within the reinsurance and that were made honestly and in a proper and businesslike manner and the burden to displace indemnity lies on the reinsurer; Grand Union faile…

Hong Kong Case Law

ROBIN HARGREAVES ON HIS OWN BEHALF ON BEHALF OF THOSE LLOYDS\' SYNDICATES LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE TO THE WRIT OF SUMMONS v. TAIAN INSURANCE CO. LTD

MERCANTILE MUTUAL HOLDINGS LTD. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE CO.

INSURANCE CO OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO AND ANOTHER

INSURANCE CO OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA v. GRAND UNION INSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER