UK: A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.

Last Updated: 9 July 2010
Article by Nigel Brook

Gibbon v Manchester City Council

Part 36 offers: need to withdraw offer and determining whether an offer is "more advantageous"

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/726.html

In this case, the Court of Appeal heard two appeals together. They both concerned the scope of CPR r36 (offers to settle). Moore-Bick LJ prefaced his judgment with the comment that Part 36 embodies a self-contained code and it does not incorporate all the rules of law governing the formation of contracts.

In the first appeal, the claimant had offered to accept £2,500. This offer was never withdrawn and a few months later the claimant rejected an offer from the defendant which was for a similar amount. The defendant then formally accepted the claimant's offer. The Court of Appeal held that the defendant was entitled to accept the offer which had never been withdrawn. There is no concept of implied withdrawal of a Part 36 offer. Rejection of a Part 36 offer does not render it incapable of later acceptance and, unlike in common law, an offer cannot lapse.

Moore-Bick added that "although the rule does not prescribe any particular form of notice [of withdrawal], in order to avoid uncertainty it should include an express reference to the date of the offer and its terms, together with some words making it clear that it is withdrawn". The rejection by the claimant of the defendant's counter-offer did not amount to a withdrawal of her offer which had been on similar terms. This part of the Court of Appeal's decision reflects the views of Coulson J in Sampla v Rushmoor Borough Council (see Weekly Update 40/09).

In the second appeal, Moore-Bick LJ also commented (obiter) that a party can make a number of different Part 36 offers, all of which are concurrently open for acceptance: "Part 36.does not provide that only one offer may be available for acceptance at any one time". In this case, the claimant had recovered £661 more than the defendants' offer. That raised the question whether the claimant had failed to obtain a judgment which was "more advantageous" than the defendants' offer (within the meaning of CPR r36.14(1)(a)).

In the Court of Appeal decision of Carver v BAA [2008], it was concluded that account should be taken of all aspects of a case, including emotional stress and financial factors. Both Moore-Bick LJ and Carnwath LJ expressed criticism of that decision (which has also recently been criticised by Jackson LJ in his Review of Civil Litigation Costs). Although they recognised that they are bound by the decision, they said that it "should not be interpreted as opening the way to a wide-ranging investigation of emotional and other factors in every case, even where the financial advantage is significant". In most cases, obtaining judgment for an amount greater than the offer will outweigh all other factors. Only in rare cases (for example, where the offer is beaten by only a very small amount and the winning party has suffered serious adverse consequences as a result of pursuing the case to judgment) will other factors outweigh success in pure financial terms.

Stainer v Lee

Test for bringing derivative claim under the Companies Act - of possible interest to D&O insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2010/1539.html

The Companies Act 2006 provides that a derivative claim can be brought if two stages are passed: (1) the applicant has a prima facie case; and (2) the court decides that the case should proceed. (Derivative claims were not possible under the previous Companies Act but they are not new in English law as they were possible under common law). In this case, the applicant passed the first stage. The second stage is governed by section 263 which provides that permission must be refused if "a person acting under section 172 (duty to promote the success of the company) would not seek to continue the claim". There is no corresponding provision as to the circumstances in which permission must be granted. Instead, the court must take account of a series of factors in deciding whether or not to grant permission. One of those factors is the importance which a person acting in accordance with section 172 would attach to continuing it.

Roth J reviewed the relevant caselaw and agreed with Lewison J's decision in Iesini v Westrip Holdings [2009] that the test is whether some directors would seek to continue the claim (even if others would not). However, he disagree with Lewison J that the standard to be applied under section 263 must be more than a prima facie case, since that forms the first stage of the procedure. Roth J said that: "It seems to me possible that the court might revise its view as to a prima facie case once it has received evidence and argument from the other side, so the antithesis between [the first stage] and 263 might not be so stark". No particular standard of proof was needed for section 263. In particular, "if the case seems very strong, it may be appropriate to continue it even if the likely level of recovery is not so large, since such a claim stands a good chance of provoking an early settlement or may indeed qualify for summary judgment. On the other hand, it may be in the interests of the Company to continue even a less strong case if the amount of potential recovery is very large".

On the facts of this case (involving a loan by the Company to a third party company (whose sole shareholder was also a director of the Company) on an interest-free basis, at a time when the Company had a very substantial level of bank borrowing at commercial rates of interest), the judge concluded that it could not be said that no director acting in the company's best interests would seek to continue the claim. In fact, he thought that many directors would consider it important to continue it. Accordingly, he granted permission for the derivative claim to continue, but subject to a ceiling on costs.

COMMENT: D&O insurers who have written policies covering derivative claims should note the guidance given by Roth J, since this is one of the first cases post-enactment of the Companies Act 2006 in which permission to continue a derivative claim has been granted.

Best v Smyth

Percentage of reduction for contributory negligence http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1541.html

One of the issues in this case was what the amount of reduction should be for the defendant's contributory negligence. The claimant had not been wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. Since Froom v Butcher [1976], the maximum reduction likely to be awarded for this is 25%. The claimant was also aware that the defendant driver had been drinking heavily before he got into the car. Since Owens v Brimmell [1977], the usual reduction for this is 20%. The defendant sought to argue that the total reduction in the case should therefore be 50%. Tugendhat J rejected that argument and said that it was "ambitious" to argue that in this case the passenger should be considered equally to blame as the driver. He therefore proceeded on the basis that there should be a maximum reduction of 30% in respect of the issue of contributory negligence.

Anglian Water Services v Laing O'Rourke

Extending time under section 12 of the Arbitration Act 1996

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2010/1529.html

S)12 of the Arbitration Act 1996 gives the court power to extend time for beginning arbitral proceedings. In Lantic Sugar v Baffin (Weekly Update 01/10), Gross J held that an extension could only be granted if the conduct of the defendant contributed to the claimant's failure to comply with the time limit. In this case, notice was sent to the defendant's solicitors (rather than the address specified in the contract), who sent an unqualified confirmation of safe receipt (and this followed the same pattern of service and acknowledgment of documents between the parties as in the past (no question as to validity of service having arisen previously)). The claimant was entitled to assume that if any point was going to be taken about service, the defendant's solicitors would have made this clear. Although the solicitors had not acted with any intention to mislead, their conduct was a material contributing cause to the fact that notice of intention to refer the dispute to arbitration was not sent in time and so an extension of time (if required) would have been granted.

Price & Anor v Carter

Extending time to appeal arbitration award/challenging an award based on delegation of powers by the arbitrator

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2010/1451.html

S) 70(2) of the Arbitration Act provides that an appeal against an arbitration award may only be brought if the appellant has first exhausted "(a) any available arbitral process of appeal or review, and (b) any available recourse under s) 57 (correction of award)". S) 70(3) further provides that an appeal must be brought "within 28 days of the date of the award or, if there has been any arbitral process of appeal or review, of the date when the ...appellant was notified of the result of that process".

Edwards-Stuart J felt that the precisely drafted wording in s) 70(3) meant that only an arbitral process of appeal or review has the effect of extending time within which to appeal. If there is an application for correction of an award under s) 57, any appeal must be brought within 28 days of the award. He noted that this result was "obviously unsatisfactory" though. A party who seeks correction of an award which may affect the ultimate outcome must (in order to preserve his rights of appeal) start his claim within the 28 day period and before he knows the outcome of his application for correction (as the arbitrator has 28 days from the receipt of an application to correct an award within which to make the correction).

Although he reached no firm conclusion on the point, the judge said that he would have granted an extension of time on the facts of this case, because the appellants had applied to the arbitrator for reconsideration of the award and it would be unjust to treat the 28 day period under s) 70 as having started to run before they knew the outcome of their application.

In any event, the judge found that the appeal failed on its merits. One of the arguments raised related to delegation by the arbitrator to an assessor. Edwards-Stuart J held that an arbitrator is not precluded from delegating to another party even if the arbitrator is quite capable of carrying out the work himself (it might, for example, be more cost effective to act in that way). Furthermore, there was no serious irregularity in giving the parties only a limited right to comment on the assessor's conclusions. Both parties had been treated in the same way and there was no evidence that any irregularity caused the appellants substantial injustice (ie there was no evidence of what the appellants would have done if they had been allowed to comment fully or whether any errors would have been found to be significant).

(One further point confirmed by the judge was that an arbitrator, having issued his award, is under no obligation to advise the losing party that he has only 28 days to bring an appeal).

B v A

Whether failure to decide dispute in accordance with applicable law gives rise to challenge under section 67 or 68 of the Arbitration Act/status of dissenting opinion

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/1626.html

The parties entered into an agreement which was governed by Spanish law but provided for disputes to be referred to arbitration in London (subject to the rules of the ICC). Following the dispute, a dissenting arbitrator claimed that the other arbitrators had failed to apply Spanish law when reaching their decision. S) 46 of the Arbitration Act provides that the arbitral tribunal shall decide the dispute in accordance with the law chosen by the parties. Whilst the claimant accepted that there would be no breach of s) 46 if the arbitrators made an error in the application of the law, it suggested that a mistake which was so serious as to amount to a departure from the chosen law could be challenged under s) 67 (tribunal lacked jurisdiction) or s) 68(2)(b) (tribunal exceeded its powers) of the Act (no challenge under s) 69 (error of law) could be brought in this case because the parties had waived their right to bring such a challenge under the ICC rules).

Tomlinson J rejected the claimant's arguments. The House of Lords decided in Lesotho Highlands v Impregilo [2006] that an error of law does not involve an excess of power under s) 68(2)(b) and Tomlinson J said that "I do not consider that the conclusion can be any different whether the law under consideration is English law or a foreign law". Nor did an error in the application of the chosen law involve a lack of substantive jurisdiction under s) 67.

Tomlinson J also commented on the status of the dissenting arbitrator's opinion. He concluded that it was not formally part of the award of the tribunal. A dissenting opinion might be admissible as evidence in relation to procedural matters or where the proper law of the dispute is English law and there is an appeal on a point of law. However, in this case the dissenting opinion had no formal status: "In so far as it expresses conclusions of Spanish law which go beyond any evidence as to the content of that law given at the arbitration, I do not see how I can have regard to it". At most, it amounted only to inadmissible opinion evidence.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Nigel Brook
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.