In a judicial review of the FOS’s decision as to whether it has jurisdiction over a complaint, where the issue involves the correct construction of a contract, the court should decide the correct construction because questions of construction are questions of law [61]. On the true construction of the agreement between the insurer and the retailers in the present case, the retailers had acted as agents for the insurer in selling PPI policies to consumers. On that basis, even though the retailers had not been subject to FSMA regulation when the PPI policies were sold, the FOS had jurisdiction to determine complaints by the consumers that the PPI policies were mis-sold, because the insurer had been subject to FSMA regulation.
5/9/23
R (ON THE APPLICATION OF MANCHIKALAPATI) v THE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPENSATION SCHEME
An insurer’s liability for interest and costs under a court judgment in favour of the policyholders, was not a claim under the insurance policy to which the claim related. Since the policy did not provide for the recovery of those sums, the FSCS was not liable under the relevant scheme rules to provide compensation to the policyholders when the insurer became insolvent and unable to pay the interest and costs.
5/10/23
VASAMI v HACK [2023] EWHC 2431 (Ch)
Considers principles of proprietary estoppel [34]. On the facts, the defendant to a claim for possession of a farm had not established a right to possession on the basis of alleged promises by his uncle that the defendant could live at the farm after his uncle’s days [34].