Abstract
The court in Re Ballast [2006] EWHC 3189 (Ch) rejected the proposition that an insurer via subrogation has a proprietary interest in the insured's cause of action, but its reasoning is strewn with confusion and fails to appreciate the impact of insolvency set-off on the principle of indemnity. All the reasons the court gave in Re Ballast for rejecting proprietary subrogation are in fact compatible with proprietary subrogation. Academic criticisms against proprietary subrogation failed to pay sufficient regard to the principle of indemnity. Lord Templeman's preference in Napier v Hunter [1993] AC 713 for proprietary subrogation is correct and is consistent with plenty of North American case-law.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
