UK: Weekly Update: A Summary of Recent Developments in Insurance, Reinsurance and Litigation Law – 30/10

Last Updated: 10 August 2010
Article by Nigel Brook

THIS WEEK'S CASELAW

City & General v Royal & Sun Alliance

Whether judge was wrong to set aside order extending time for service of claim form/acknowledgment and insurance claims

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/911.html

Clyde & Co for appellant

Developers claimed against both their contractors' all risks and property damage insurers in respect of damage allegedly suffered as a result of (a) water ingress in 2002, (b) the collapse of a crane in 2003 and (c) infestation of water systems in 2004. The developers appealed against a decision to set aside an order which had extended time for service of the claim form (on the basis that insurers would arguably have been deprived of a time bar defence (in relation to the crane collapse claim, which had be come time-barred during the period when the claim form should have been served). The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:

  1. The judge could not be criticised for not considering the 3 claims separately. He was not asked to do so and this would have been a complicated and unjustified approach.
  2. The judge did not purport to come to any conclusion regarding an "arguable" but "by no means straightforward" argument that each separate ingress of water gave rise to a separate cause of action against the insurers.
  3. It was not appropriate to extend time to enable a "doubtful" response to the time bar defence to be taken. The developers argued that offers made by the insurers in 2007 amounted to an acknowledgment of those claims and so the limitation period started again at the date of acknowledgment (section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980). Insurers had offered £25,000 in respect of the water ingress claim (for which the developers were claiming over £1 million) and just under £25,000 for the crane claim (for which the developers were claiming just over £500,000). Longmore LJ said that: "It is not immediately obvious that an open offer of a small amount, in response to a claim of a much larger amount, is an acknowledgment of a claim in that much larger amount. It might, no doubt, be said that it is at least an acknowledgment of the claim in the smaller amount, see Surrendra Ltd v Sri Lanka [1977]..., but it would be a question whether it would be right to extend time for service of a claim form merely to enable that much smaller amount to be claimed".

Furthermore, section 29(5) only applies "where any right of action has accrued to recover ... any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim." Longmore LJ said that the claims against the insurers were not, on the face of it, claims for a debt or other liquidated claims. Not only were they not currently quantified, there was considerable caselaw authority that claims under a policy of indemnity are claims for unliquidated damages (for failure to pay a proper claim).

Bacon v Nacional Suiza Cia Seguros Y Reseguros

Temporal scope of Rome II

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2017.html

The English claimant was injured by a Spanish driver (insured by the Spanish defendant) on 7 September 2007. An issue arose as to whether Spanish or English law applied to the assessment of damages and this in turn depended on whether Rome II applied. In last week's Update, it was reported that Slade J was of the opinion in the case of Homawoo v GMF Assurance that Rome II applied to events giving rise to damage which occur only on or after 11 January 2009.

In this case, Tomlinson J (who had been shown a copy of Slade J's judgment) concluded that Rome II applies to events giving rise to damage which occur on or after 20 August 2007. In so doing, the judge commented that it is well-established in EU legislation that there can be a difference between the date when an instrument comes into force and the date when it "applies". However, it should be noted that Tomlinson J's comments were made obiter, since he had also concluded that the defendant was not liable to the claimant.

COMMENT: This issue is commonly of importance to foreign insurers in particular when faced with an English third party claimant. If Rome II applies, as it was held to here, then the law of the insurer's home state will govern the assessment of the quantum of damages. Otherwise, English law will apply (see Harding v Wealands [2007]).That is important because the assessment of quantum under English law is significantly more beneficial to claimants than in several other European jurisdictions. There are now, therefore, two conflicting views from two High Court judges (in under a week) as to the temporal scope of Rome II and it remains to be seen whether a reference will in fact be made to the ECJ to finally determine the point.

Chalbury McCouat International v PG Foils

Failure of procedure to appoint arbitral tribunal and connection with England

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2010/2050.html

A contract entered into between an English company and an Indian company contained the following arbitration clause: "In case if there is any dispute between the parties of this contract the same will be sorted out by mutual discussion, But in case if the issue is not resolved even after discussions the same will be referred to arbitration as per prevailing laws of European Union in the Europe. The decision of the Arbitrator is final and binding on both parties."

When the parties could not agree on the procedure to appoint an arbitral tribunal, the English company commenced proceedings in England asking the court to exercise its powers under s)18 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (which includes the power to give directions for appointments). That in turn required the English court to decide whether or not the seat of the arbitration would be in England and whether the court had the power to support the arbitral process because of a connection with England and Wales under s) 2(4) of the Arbitration Act). Ramsey J concluded as follows:

No seat of arbitration was chosen in the arbitration clause. There is no statutory guidance as to the degree or type of connection required under s) 2(4). The supplementary report of the Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law (which commented on the Arbitration Bill before it became law) provided that there "must not be a clash with a foreign jurisdiction of the type there would be if there is a seat of arbitration elsewhere". Ramsey J held that the report did not have in mind the type of clash where one party may apply to a court in one jurisdiction and the other party to a court in another jurisdiction (as here).

There was no express choice of law in the arbitration clause. One of the matters relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion under s) 2(4) is the law likely to govern the substance of the dispute. In this case, there was a strong suggestion that the applicable law should be determined under the laws of the European Union and so the Rome Convention applied. This indicated that English law would be the governing law (because it is presumed that the contract is most closely connected with the country where the party who is to effect the performance which is characteristic of the contract has its central administration and, in this case, that was England).

Furthermore, (given the conclusion on English law) the judge found that an English seat of arbitration was possible but an Indian seat was unlikely. This in turn meant that there was sufficient connection with England for the court to exercise its powers under s)18 to support the arbitral process.

Ramsey J went on to find that it would not be appropriate for the President of the English Law Society to nominate an arbitrator. Instead, the appointment should be made by a well-respected independent international arbitration institution. He concluded that the President of the LCIA should make the appointment.

Omak Maritime v Mamola Challenger

Wasted expenditure where claimant would be in a better position than if the contract had been performed

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/2026.html

Charterers appealed from an LMAA tribunal award in favour of the owners. Unusually, the charterers had repudiated the charterparty when the market rate of hire was then higher than the charterparty rate of hire. Accordingly, the owners were able to trade at the higher market rate. Nevertheless, the owners claimed damages for the expenses which they had incurred in preparing to perform the charterparty. The charterers appealed against the tribunal's decision.

Teare J said that it was accepted that expenditure which has been wasted as a result of a breach of contract is recoverable as damages. In Robinson v Harman (1848), Baron Parke said that it was a rule of common law that in a breach of contract case, a claimant should be placed in the same position as if the contract had been performed. A corollary of that principle is that a damages award should not put the claimant in a better position than he would have been in had the contract been performed. Teare J said that this rule governs claims for wasted expenses as well as a claim for loss of profits. The tribunal had erred in holding that a claim for wasted expenses and a claim for loss of profits were two separate and independent claims which could not be mixed. In other words, the fact that the vessel could be hired out at a higher rate as a result of the repudiation should have been taken into account and the owners net overall position should have been looked at.

(Teare J also held (obiter) that, had he dismissed the appeal he would have also allowed the owners' appeal from the tribunal's decision regarding loss of earnings by the owners (for the time which they had spent making the vessel ready for the charterparty). Teare J said that the owners could have claimed not just for wasted expenditure but also for "a wasted decision to forego earnings at the market rate").

Lockheed Martin v Willis Group

Substitution of party, on the ground of mistake, after expiry of limitation period

The claimant entered into a settlement agreement with London Market insurance companies in 2002. It was not, however, paid all that it was owed - in part because certain insurers had become insolvent but also in part because its brokers had allegedly failed to maintain adequate records and so it was unable to indentify who certain of the relevant insurers were. Shortly before expiry of the limitation period, it issued a claim form naming Willis Group Holdings Limited ("Holdings") as a defendant. Holdings is the ultimate holding company in the Willis Group and is a Bermudian company. After the claim form reached the Willis Group, an in-house solicitor at Willis Ltd told the claimant that valid service could not be effected on Holdings in England and so the claimant applied to substitute Willis Group Limited ("Group") (the principal holding company in the UK) and Willis Limited ("Limited") (the principal broking company within the UK operation) as defendants. As reported in Weekly Update 24/09, Beatson J set aside an order for substitution under CPR r19.5 and the claimant sought permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has refused permission to appeal but for different reasons than those given by the judge. Since this is a case for substitution of a party, it must be shown that Holdings was named in mistake for Group and/or Limited. On the facts, the claimant intended to claim against the senior holding company of the group's UK broking operations. Thus it had intended to sue Group, but not Limited.

The judge had then considered a second "requirement": whether the mistake was misleading to the other party or caused reasonable doubt as to the identity of the party intended to be sued. However, the Court of Appeal has held (expressly on an obiter basis) that this is not a formal condition of the CPR r19.5 jurisdiction. It is, instead, just an aspect of discretion. In this respect, therefore, the judge had erred.

The Court of Appeal then went on to hold that there is no jurisdiction to allow the claimant to substitute a new party out of time unless to do so is necessary. This necessity test could not be satisfied by the claimant. The duties of care pleaded in the claim form (including, for example, the duty to maintain adequate records) could not arise against Group, which is a holding and not a broking company. Accordingly, the claimant had no cause of action against Group and so permission to appeal was refused.

Rubin & Anor v Eurofinance

Whether English courts should enforce decision of US bankruptcy court

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/895.html&query=rubin+and+eurofinance&method=boolean

Weekly Update 32/09 reported the first instance decision in this case. It involves an application by receivers under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations") - which give effect to the UNCITRAL Model Law relating to cross-border insolvency - for recognition of a US bankruptcy court decision and an order enforcing that decision as a judgment of the English courts. At first instance, the judge held that the judgment could not be enforced. The Court of Appeal has now allowed an appeal from that decision.

Ward LJ, given the leading judgment, held that proceedings brought in the US to recover monies were part of the bankruptcy proceedings. The ordinary rules for enforcing foreign judgments do not apply to bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, the ordinary private international law rules preventing enforcement of judgments where a defendant is not subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign court do not apply. The US proceedings must be recognised as a "foreign main proceeding" under the Regulations. He pointed out that "there should be a unitary bankruptcy proceeding in the court of the bankrupt's domicile which receives world-wide recognition and it should apply universally to all the bankrupt's assets". Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused "in the confident expectation that Lord Collins of Mapesbury or Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe will not need much time to decide whether to jump at the opportunity to take the appeal or to leave it be".

Black Horse v Speak & Anor

ICOB and joint borrowers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/1866.html

This case involved customers who had taken out a payment protection insurance policy at the same time that they received a loan from the claimant bank. One of the issues to arise was whether there had been a breach of ICOB, since the bank was acting as an insurance intermediary. Waksman J found on the facts that there had not been any misrepresentation to the customers. One argument which was raised though was whether the bank's employee ought to have gone through a questionnaire with both the husband and wife where they were to be joint borrowers. The judge said that there was no hard and fast rule and it depends on the circumstances of the case. In this case, he found that the wife had authorised her husband to deal with the loan and the bank's employee had sought confirmation of this. There was therefore no need to go through the questions again with the wife and there had been no breach of ICOB.

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.