law firms in Supreme Court of India http://supremecourtindia.in/the-court-held-that-supreme-court-precedent/. It provided for the sale and purchase of the Company’s share capital (clause 3) for the consideration of £7,681,661 payable on completion (clause 4), and it also provided for deferred consideration (Schedule 8). Government and local authorities act as individuals do and the policy of the Act is to put Government and local authorities on a par with private individuals. The Strasbourg court acknowledged that the 1999 Act regime “sought to achieve the legitimate aim of the widest public access to legal services for civil litigation funded by the private sector” (para 197).
It follows that the demise charterer may claim over against a time charterer who is not party to the insurance or any of the contractual arrangements connected with it. When the “OCEAN VICTORY” was lost, the insurers were bound under clause 12(c) to pay its insured value to the head owner or, rather, to the mortgagee for the account of the head owner. This is particularly so, when (as I believe to be the case) Mr Hunt made a mistake which was causative lawyers in Supreme Court of India the “but for” sense, that, apart from the mistake, he would not have structured the arrangements in the way he did.
But the natural legal inference from (i) the fact that the demise charterer is insured for his interest in the ship, (ii) the implied prohibition of claims for damages between the co-insured for loss of or damage to the ship, and (iii) the avoidance of double recovery, is that the insurer’s payment to the head owner makes good the head owner’s loss not just as between the insurer and the head owner but as between both of them and the demise charterer. This conclusion can be explained under the scheme indicated in Banque Financière either on the basis that there was no sufficiently direct transfer of value from Mr Hunt to HMT, or on the basis that there is no relevant unjust factor, or both.
Clause 1 contained the following definitions which are relevant to the construction of the disputed indemnity: The SPA is a detailed and professionally drafted contract. But mere “but for” causation is not sufficient: see ITC, para 52. Any benefit which HMT has from Mr Hunt’s mistake is no more than an indirect and incidental consequence of those arrangements on Swynson’s separate and pre-existing relationship with HMT. It has been satisfied. More generally, this conclusion underlines the fact that it is not the role of the top law firms in Supreme Court India of unjust enrichment to provide persons finding to their cost that they have made a mistake with recourse by way of subrogation against those who may indirectly have benefitted by such a mistake under separate relationships which those making the mistake were not addressing.
In a very general sense, I can understand it being said that it is an injustice to Swynson or Mr Hunt and a pure windfall for HMT, if HMT benefits by avoiding paying damages. I would further accept the third submission made on behalf of the charterers that on the authorities to which I have referred, safe port disputes should be reasonably straightforward. The demise charterer’s liability under the demise charter for the loss of the ship has not been excluded.
In these circumstances, I do not consider that Mr Hunt can establish a basis for being subrogated to any claim which Swynson would have had against HMT, had its loss in respect of the 2006 and 2007 loans not been reduced to nil. Was the danger alleged an abnormal occurrence, that is something rare and unexpected, or was it something which was normal for the particular port for the particular ship’s visit at the particular time of the year? But Government (1) [1952] INSC 67; [1953] S.
However, at paras 207 to 210 of its judgment, the Strasbourg court discussed a number of flaws in the system that Sir Rupert Jackson had identified in his Review; to quote from Lawrence (No 3), para 43: Meanwhile, MGN was dissatisfied with the House of Lords’ decision law firms in Supreme Court of India Campbell (No 2), and applied to the Strasbourg court, who, on 18 January 2011, decided that MGN’s article 10 rights were infringed by having to reimburse the claimant the success fee and the ATE premium which Ms Campbell had incurred – MGN v United Kingdom (2011) 53 EHRR 5 (“MGN v UK”).
This is too remote to be the basis for a claim that HMT has been unjustly enriched at Mr Hunt’s expense, or for reversal of the consequences of Mr Hunt’s arrangements by treating him as having a (fictionalised) interest which he never expected, best advocates in Supreme Court India respect of a claim by Swynson to recover from HMT a loss otherwise reduced to nil by the arrangements he made. Regulatory Authority means any body by which any part of the Business is or was regulated pursuant to any Applicable Financial Services Laws (including, but not limited to, the FSA, the Personal Investments Authority Ltd, the General Insurance Standards Council, the Insurance Brokers Registration Council and including the Financial Services Ombudsman and any voluntary regulatory body with whose rules the Company has agreed to comply).