|
TIME EUROPE Monday, November 6, 2000 Interview with Max Taylor The extended version of TIME's exclusive interview with the chairman of Lloyd's Page One | Two | Three TIME: The question of independence is interesting. I note that he said this panel should be set up by Lloyd's but the judge then went out of his way, after he was taxed further about this, whether this panel would be totally independent, and I am not a lawyer but I would have said -- and I am sure you have heard the report from your counsel on this -- that the way he went on to explain what he meant left little doubt that he expected this independent panel to be independent of Lloyd's even if set up by Lloyd's. Taylor: He also made the point that of course he has no jurisdiction in this matter and this is simply a suggestion that he has put forward and we certainly take it as being a helpful suggestion and will take it into consideration. TIME: So you will respond positively to that suggestion? Taylor: We have had this judgment for a few hours and we need to go away and consider its full implications. We have always known that once we got the result we would need to consider how to carry the debt collection process forward and we will take this into consideration. But that is not something we are going to do in 24 hours. TIME: But there is a court-imposed deadline for that, is there not? Taylor: There is no deadline at all. He has no jurisdiction. TIME: You say in the press release you have just issued that the terms of the judgment mean that the Human Rights Act issues raised by the Names are completely irrelevant. Haven't those issues yet to be tested? Taylor: Well, it's a slightly complicated situation here and it is really in two sections. The most important point is that, because of the nature of the judgment that has been reached (i.e. that Lloyd's is cleared of both fraud and negligence effectively, i.e. fraud and misrepresentation) the only basis of pursuing any issues under the European Convention of Human Rights would be to try and establish the right to take action against Lloyd's for negligence. But, as the judge has actually said that there is no case for negligence, they would not have a case to bring; so, as far as we are concerned, it's completely irrelevant. TIME: You're confident that he has exonerated Lloyd's of all charges of gross negligence? Taylor: He has cleared Lloyd's on fraud and misrepresentation, absolutely. TIME: Assuming this is the case and that it is impossible for the Names to pursue Lloyd's further under section 14 of the Human Rights Act... Taylor: May I make it clear: They couldn't pursue Lloyd's anyway, even if they were to pursue action under the European Convention of Human Rights. It would not be against Lloyd's, it would actually be against Her Majesty's Government. MORE>> Page One | Two | Three TIME Europe home More stories from TIME Europe and related links E-mail us at mail@timeatlantic.com |
 |
|
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
E-mail us: Letter to the Editor | Customer Service
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Press Releases