Terms of contracts prevail over rights of subrogation

Terms of contracts prevail over rights of subrogation

The law has long recognised that where an insurer has indemnified an insured for loss caused by a third party, the insurer can sue the third party in the insured’s name to recover the amount paid. However, two recent UK decisions have discussed the question of when the terms of a contract entered into by the insured might impact on rights of recovery.

Read More

Legal 500 Rankings

Legal 500 Rankings

Fee Langstone was ranked in Tier One for Insurance, being recognised for "depth of experience" and "well-respected" in the area. Partners Philippa Fee, Craig Langstone, Pauline Davies and Cecily Brick were listed as Leading Individuals. Virginia Wethey was also recognised as a Next Generation Partner. Matt Atkinson, Russell Stewart and Angus Wakeman were also named as Key Lawyers. Thank you to all clients who provided testimonials.

Read More

No coverage under all risks marine policy for losses resulting from fraudulent shipment

No coverage under all risks marine policy for losses resulting from fraudulent shipment

Englehart CTP (US) LLC v Lloyd's Syndicate 1221 & Ors [2018] EWHC 900 (Comm)

Englehart, the insured in this UK case, claimed under an “All Risks” cargo insurance policy for loss it sustained in accepting fraudulent bills of lading for a cargo of copper ingots, where that cargo was never in fact shipped.

Read More

Chambers Rankings 2021 & NZ Law Awards

Chambers Rankings 2021 & NZ Law Awards

Chambers Rankings 2021 & NZ Law Awards

We are very pleased to announce two pleasant surprises in time for Christmas. Fee Langstone was ranked in Band 1 for Insurance Law in the Chambers Asia-Pacific Rankings 2021 with Philippa Fee as a ranked individual. Pauline Davies was also named a ranked individual in Band 2 for Shipping.


We are also delighted to have been awarded NZ Law Awards 2020 Insurance Specialist Law Firm of the Year. This year was a virtual event and all winners were asked to submit an acceptance video in lieu of attending. You can watch our rather silly one here.

Read More

New Covid 'test case' out of New South Wales

New Covid 'test case' out of New South Wales

Regular readers will be aware that Fee Langstone has been providing updates on the UK ‘test case’ on the business interruption response to COVID-19 related claims.

Closer to home, the New South Wales Court of Appeal has also recently handed down its decision in its own test case. It found in favour of insured businesses, ruling that insurers could not rely on certain disease exclusion clauses to deny claims for loss caused by business interruption losses from COVID-19.

Read More

Continuing developments in Southern Response v Ross – Class Action “opt-out” approved

Continuing developments in Southern Response v Ross – Class Action “opt-out” approved

Southern Response Earthquake Services Limited v Ross continues to throw up significant legal developments. The latest is the landmark judgment issued last month by the Supreme Court whereby it has approved the use of an “opt-out” representative action regime in New Zealand.

Also, in a significant postscript, the government has announced a “proactive package” to be offered to eligible policyholders. This article looks at both developments.

Read More

Get to know our Special Counsels

We've had some exciting changes to our team at Fee Langstone. In particular the appointment of three Special Counsels. Watch Angus, Brad and Tom share their thoughts on their new role and their careers.

Solvency the key

Solvency the key

Supreme Court decision a warning to directors trading near-insolvent companies

Madsen-Ries v Cooper [2020] NZSC 100

Debut Homes Limited (Debut) was a property developer. Mr Cooper is Debut’s sole director. In November 2012, Mr Cooper decided to wind down Debut’s operations. Existing developments would be completed but no new developments undertaken. At the time this decision was made, it was forecast that there would be a deficit of over $300,000 in GST once the wind-down was completed. The liquidators of Debut sued Mr Cooper. They claimed that he incurred debts on behalf of Debut without a reasonable belief that Debut would be able to meet them when they fell due, in breach of ss 135 & 136 of the Companies Act 1993 (the Act),. The liquidators claimed the full amount of unsecured creditor claims, being $449,507. The High Court found that Mr Cooper had breached the above provisions. This decision was reversed in the Court of Appeal but was later reinstated by the Supreme Court.

Read More