All self-employed barristers are proudly independent in the advice that they give and the service they provide. That said, parties to disputes can sometimes have concerns, which their solicitors may find difficult to manage, about the relationships between their and their opponent’s barrister or their or their opponent’s barrister and the arbitrator(s).
Maryon Wynter Chambers was set up precisely in order to demonstrate the complete independence of the service that we provide – independent of the law firm (Wynterhill LLP) that Colin created, and sharing no workplace or facilities with any other barrister or solicitor.
This, together with Colin’s wealth of experience appearing for both insurers and policyholders, makes him an ideal choice to arbitrate or mediate insurance disputes.
I appeared in my first arbitration, Caudle v Sharp in the mid-1990s. I mention it because it was later appealed to the High Court (for which my services as junior counsel were sadly not required). It became for a good while, the leading case on the meaning of the words, as frequently used in aggregation provisions of insurance contracts, “one event”.
Aggregation issues around the meanings of “event”, “occurrence”, “source” other similar words and follow settlements provisions in reinsurance contracts, together with their ugly cousin, “claims cooperation” clauses, typically variations on the original SCOR clause, then became staple elements of my litigation and arbitration practice for the next couple of decades, with cases springing from almost every major physical disaster or financial fiasco of the period.
My independent practice, in which I work alone and without colleagues has made me a sought after arbitrator, particularly given insurance and reinsurance companies’ largely unwarranted but predictable concerns about having their cases arbitrated by KCs from the same chambers as either or both of the KCs appearing as advocates.