Lloyd's seeks to ground Gooda Walker review
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.LLOYD'S went on the attack in the High Court yesterday to try to gain a ruling that a successful application for a judicial review sought by members of the troubled Gooda Walker insurance syndicates should be set aside.
On the first day of the hearing before Lord Justice Leggatt and Mr Justice Popplewell, Gordon Pollock QC, counsel for Lloyd's, said that the underwriting members bringing the action had been issued with demands for cash, in the form of 'calls', from their agents more than three months before they had entered an application for a judicial review into the background to their pounds 491m losses.
Mr Pollock argued that the members were 'out of time' when they lodged the application.
'No case has been put forward as to why the delay occurred,' he told the court.
Mr Pollock alleged that there had been material non-disclosure by the underwriting members pursuing the current action when they gained the right to pursue an application for a judicial review before Mr Justice Potts in May this year.
Mr Justice Potts was told that there was no overlap of interests between members pursuing this action and other action taking place elsewhere in the courts.
'Mr Justice Potts can only have been left with a wholly false impression,' Mr Pollock said.
Mr Pollock said three of the applicants for the judicial review had sought an injunction earlier to prevent Lloyd's drawing down on their deposits lodged with the market to pay insurance claims.
Rather than public law, he stressed, Lloyd's relied on a private Act of Parliament in the way that it conducted its affairs, in which an underwriting member undertakes to carry on business at Lloyd's and discharge his liabilities through an agency.
Anthony Coleman, counsel for an underwriting member, Frederick Briggs, and others bringing the action, argued that Lloyd's was a public body affecting large numbers of the public.
'Lloyd's is a body which has been subsequently recognised to have control over a whole cluster of interests,' he said.
He added that Lloyd's had a major responsibility to the Department of Trade and Industry.
The hearing continues today.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments