Unjust Enrichment in the ‘Fairchild Enclave’ International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc

In International Energy Group v Zurich Insurance, the Supreme Court considered the implications of the special rule in Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd for insurers’ for employers’ liability. The question for the Court was whether, in the light of its earlier decision in Durham v BAI (Run off) Ltd, insurers could be held liable for employees’ mesothelioma claims, even if the employer was not insured throughout the period of employment. The seven Justices unanimously held that insurers’ liability was proportionate to the period of insurance. In reaching that result, the majority recognised that the insurers were entitled to ‘equitable recoupment’ from insured‐employers in respect of periods during which they were uninsured. This note critiques the recoupment right with an unjust enrichment lens.     

Hanging — A review

A study of 201 cases of death due to hanging, 95% being suicidal in nature and 5% being accidental; in addition there was one judicial hanging. The majority of deaths were in persons over 50 years of age, males predominating particularly in the 50 – 60 age group. In contrast to the Registrar General's annual returns for suicide which show a steady decrease over the past 20 years, deaths due to hanging have increased considerably, particularly in the last decade. This trend could be related to the dramatic fall in carbon monoxide poisoning and more circumspect prescribing of barbiturate drugs.     

“Bubbles”—A Spot Diagnosis

Abstract: Aspiration of blood is a phenomenon observed in violent and natural death scenarios. Bloodstain patterns evolving from expectoration of aspired blood may look suspicious of a violent genesis and thus mislead crime scene investigators. In the present case, a woman was found lying in a pool of blood on the kitchen floor. Furthermore, bloodstains covered her face, clothing, and surrounding furniture and walls. Bloodstain pattern analysis and medicolegal inspection of the suspected scene of crime were carried out and revealed dispersed stains with enclosed gas bubbles in the absence of signs of physical violence leading to the assessment of a natural manner of death. The bloodstains were attributed to expiration of blood because of an internal bleeding. Medicolegal autopsy confirmed the on‐site diagnosis as a fatal esophageal varix rupture was found.     

The Last Bite of the BITs—Supremacy of EU Law versus Investment Treaty Arbitration

According to Article 267 TFEU, national courts of the EU Member States can (and sometimes must) ask for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice on the interpretation and application of Community law, including international treaties and recommendations, and on the validity of Community secondary legislation. In this way, it is ensured that EU citizens are treated equally throughout the Union. However, this is not applicable when it comes to arbitral proceedings, be they commercial or investment arbitrations. The Court does not accept references for preliminary rulings from arbitral tribunals. For this reason, respondent states in international arbitral proceedings have argued that arbitration and EU law are utterly incompatible. In their submissions as respondents in arbitral proceedings, EU Member States have argued that, as a result of EU accession, bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have been automatically terminated. In subsidiary, they sometimes claim that, due to their incompatibility with EU law, BITs cannot apply. But if BITs are not applicable anymore, there are few remedies left for investors within the EU.