Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in a complex case concerning the interpretation of insurance policies related to leased aircraft following the Russian invasion of Ukraine: (a) refuses to rule as inadmissible the expert testimony of an insurance market specialist, on the grounds that the plaintiff had already adduced expert evidence on the subject, and that the defendant's expert should also be heard; but (b) rules a portion of the evidence as inadmissible where it concerned the 'course of repossession', on the grounds that it was hypothetical and not based on market experience.
insurance policies, aircraft lease, Russian invasion of Ukraine, expert testimony, market practice, market understanding, admissibility, interpretation of policies, contingent coverages, possessed coverages, AVN67 endorsements, repossession, High Court, exclusion of evidence, Hyper Trust v FBD, Crema v Cenkos Securities Plc, subjective intention, objective interpretation, factual matrix, legal submissions, niche insurance market, aviation insurance, evidence testing, cross-examination.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now