UK: A Summary Of Recent Developments In Insurance, Reinsurance And Litigation Law

Last Updated: 10 February 2011
Article by Nigel Brook

This Week's Caselaw

Masefield AG v Amlin Corporate Member Ltd & Anor

Court of Appeal upholds decision that act of piracy does not amount to actual total loss

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/24.html

Section 57(1) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 ("the Act") provides that there is an actual total loss ("ATL") where "the subject-matter insured is destroyed, or so damaged as to cease to be a thing of the kind insured, or where the assured is irretrievably deprived thereof". In this case, Somali pirates had seized a tanker and the claimant cargo owner served a notice of abandonment on the defendant cargo insurer. The notice was declined. Eleven days later the shipowners paid the pirates a ransom and the vessel was released. At first instance, it was held that there had been no actual total loss (nor constructive total loss ("CTL") as defined in section 60 of the Act). The claimant appealed on two grounds:

  1. Capture by pirates created an immediate ATL, whatever the prospects of recovery might be. After a thorough review of the leading caselaw, the Court of Appeal rejected this argument: "piratical seizure in the circumstances of this case, where there was not only a chance, but a strong likelihood, that payment of a ransom of a comparatively small sum, relative to the value of the vessel and her cargo, would secure recovery of both, was not an actual total loss. It was not an irretrievable deprivation of property. It was a typical "wait and see" situation. The facts would not even have supported a claim for a CTL, for the test of that is no longer uncertainty of recovery, but unlikelihood of recovery" (as per Rix LJ). Likewise, even if there had been a theft (which was an insured peril) that peril had not caused an ATL because the claimant had not been "irretrievably deprived" of the cargo.
  2. Although the claimant accepted that payment of ransom was not illegal or contrary to public policy under English law, it argued that it was so undesirable that an insured could not be required to pay a ransom and hence the property had been irretrievably lost if only the payment of a ransom would secure the vessel's release. That argument was also rejected by the Court of Appeal. The fact that there was no duty to make a ransom payment did not mean that there was an obligation not to make such payment: "The fact that there may be no duty to make a ransom payment does not turn a potential total loss which may be averted by the payment of ransom into an actual total loss". Questions of reasonableness are pertinent to whether there has been a CTL but not an ATL.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Consolidated Contractors v Masri

Application disclosure orders/behaviour of enquiry agents/waiver of privilege.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/21.html

Masri obtained judgment against Consolidated Contractors ("CC") and sought to enforce that judgment in England. CC sought to use every legitimate means to resist enforcement because it felt the judgment was unfair. Masri subsequently applied for an order that CC was in contempt of court. Enquiry agents were retained by Masri's solicitors to aid the enforcement process. As part of their search for documents, the enquiry agents had searched documents which had been discarded as rubbish on the pavement outside the London offices of CC - copies of documents had been taken and the originals replaced in the refuse sacks. Steel J had refused to make various orders sought by CC (see Weekly Update 39/10) and CC appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has now held as follows:

  1. Masri's solicitor must disclose the source of information set out in his affidavit. The affidavit referred to confirmation from "the enquiry agents" of the methods they had used and that they had used those methods previously to obtain documents in other court proceedings without attracting criticism. PD 32 requires an affidavit to "indicate" the source for any matters of information or belief. The Court of Appeal held that, save in exceptional circumstances (for example, where confidentiality is in issue), "the deponent must identify the source of the relevant information or belief. If the source is a person, that person must, save in exceptional cases, be identified with sufficient certainty to enable the person against whom the affidavit is directed to investigate the information or belief in accordance with the rules of court or other relevant legal principles". Accordingly, the solicitor must name the specific enquiry agent and, because that individual was engaged in a professional activity on the instructions of Masri's solicitors, the firm which employed him or her must also be named.
  2. However, Steel J had not erred in refusing to order disclosure of certain documents on the basis that no prima facie case of theft had been established on the facts. The judge was also correct in stating that even if a prima facie case had been made out, the evidence would still be admissible (unless a court ruled that it was just to exclude it). The judge had concluded that it was "wholly remote" that the evidence would be excluded.
  3. A document forwarded to Masri's solicitor was privileged. CC argued that privilege had been waived because only part of the document had been redacted. The Court of Appeal supported the decision in GE Capital v Bankers Trust [1995] that if a document is only privileged in part, the privileged part alone may be redacted.

Sibthorpe & Anor v London Borough of Southwark

Whether solicitor's agreement to indemnify client against liability for defendant's costs rendered CFA invalid/whether a contract of insurance

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/25.html

The issue in this case was whether the ancient rule against champerty (whereby a funder shares in the proceeds or the subject matter of an action) prevented a claimant's solicitor from agreeing to indemnify the claimant client against any liability for the defendant's costs (if the claimant could not obtain insurance against that risk). It was argued that the inclusion of this indemnity in a conditional fee agreement ("CFA") rendered the whole CFA invalid. The Court of Appeal reviewed the relevant caselaw and held as follows:

  1. Although the modern approach of looking at the CFA in the round applies where the person conducting the litigation is not a party, that approach does not apply where the allegedly champertous agreement is entered into with a person who is conducting the litigation in question (or providing advocacy services). That is a "special category" which is subject to stricter rules. The law is that set out in Wallersteiner v Moir (No 2) [1975]: "English law has never sanctioned an agreement by which a lawyer is remunerated on the basis of a 'contingency fee' that is he gets paid the fee if he wins, but not if he loses".
  2. However, in this case, the lawyer would have made a loss if the action failed but would not have made a gain if the action succeeded. There is no prior caselaw where such an arrangement has been held to be champertous. The Court of Appeal believed that, in the interests of access to justice, there was "attraction in the notion that an otherwise unobjectionable CFA with the indemnity should be valid, at least in small cases where After the Event ...insurance is unavailable or is prohibitively expensive". It concluded that the arrangement was not against the public interest and so it declined to extend the law of champerty to cover this type of arrangement.
  3. Although the point was not argued before the Court of Appeal, Lord Neuberger MR held that "at least when it comes to agreements with those who conduct litigation (and, presumably, with those who provide advocacy services), there can be champerty without maintenance". (Maintenance is the "wanton and officious intermeddling in the disputes of others" without justification or excuse).
  4. The Court of Appeal also held that the judge had been correct to find that the CFA was not a contract of insurance (within the meaning of FSMA Order 2001) because of the inclusion of the indemnity (if it had have been a contract of insurance, the CFA would have been void because the solicitors were not authorised to enter into it). The trial judge had found that this was a contract for the provision of legal services, albeit that the indemnity created some principles similar to an insurance contract.

BMT Marine v LWB

Contribution claim following a fire at a shipyard - date for determining if other party was liable

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/32.html

A fire took place at a shipyard owned by LWB as repairs were carried out to a ship. Those repairs were being carried out pursuant to a contract between LWB and the shipowners which was governed by German law. The ship was significantly damaged. It was insured and the owners and LWB were co-insureds. After the owners were paid under the policy, the insurers sought to claim, as assignees of the owners, against BMT, on the ground that it had negligently carried out a survey of the shipyard. BMT then sought a contribution from LWB (on the ground that the fire had been caused by LWB) under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 ("the 1978 Act"). Certain issues of German and English law fell to be decided by the English court:

  1. As a matter of German law, had the owners waived any right to claim against LWB? Simon J held that they had not. However, also as a matter of German law, he found that LWB did not have any liability to the owners. As a result, BMT could not claim a contribution from LWB under the 1978 Act.
  2. If the judge was wrong on the German law point, could BMT claim a contribution from LWB under English law? In order to recover a contribution, BMT would have to demonstrate that the owners were entitled to compensation in respect of the damage done to the ship against both BMT and LWB

As to whether the 1978 Act should be read broadly or narrowly, Simon J held that in the Royal Brompton [2002] case, it was recognised that although "the 1978 Act extended the reach of the contribution principle to a wider range of cases, a purposive and enlarged view of the reach of the statute did not assist where the words 'liable in respect of the same damage' were clear". In this case, it was clear that the owners were not entitled to recover compensation from LWB in respect of the damage "because they had contractually agreed to look to their Insurers to cover their losses."

The judge also rejected an argument by BMT that, even if there was now no existing liability, such liability did exist at the time of the fire. Simon J said that in Co-op Retail Services Ltd v Young [2002], Lord Hope had clearly rejected such an argument and had concluded that the relevant time for determining whether a person was liable was the date when the contribution was claimed. Simon J also rejected the argument that Lord Hope's observations were not binding: "Where a matter is fully argued and considered by the Court of Appeal and in speeches of members of the House of Lords, even if it were inclined to another view, a First Instance Court should be very slow to come to a different conclusion. Here the observations of the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords were not parenthetical but fully considered conclusions, and the views were unanimous. In such circumstances it is very likely that these Courts would come to the same conclusion if the matters were argued again. In any event I agree with the conclusions".

Case of MGN Ltd v The UK

ECHR rules on whether success fees breach Article 10 of the ECHR

Naomi Campbell won a libel case against a newspaper - the appeal to the House of Lords was conducted pursuant to a CFA, which provided that, if the appeal succeeded (which it did) solicitors and counsel would be entitled to their base costs as well as success fees amounting to 95% and 100% of their base costs, respectively. The newspaper applied to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming (inter alia) that the success fees violated its right to the freedom of expression guaranteed by Article 10. The case therefore concerned success fees only in the context of potentially restricting a newspaper from publishing information which ought to be published. It is nevertheless interesting to note the ECHR's stance on success fees. It found that (having reviewed the Jackson report in detail - see Weekly Update 02/10 for more details) "the depth and nature of the flaws in the system...are such that the Court can conclude that the impugned scheme exceeded the broad margin of appreciation to be accorded to the State". In the circumstances of this case, the success fee was disproportionate and there had been a violation of Article 10. This decision therefore adds weight to the criticisms of CFAs made in the Jackson report.

Carter-Ruck v Mireskandari

Whether solicitors entitled to recover their fees where narrative in bill of costs was sparse

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/24.html

The claimant firm of solicitors sought to recover their professional fees from the defendant, a former client. The defendant argued, inter alia, that he was not liable to pay the fees because the bill of costs had no proper narrative or breakdown of costs. The defendant sought to rely on the case of Kingsley [1978] to support his argument that a bill stating merely "for professional services" is inadequate and void. Swift J, hearing an appeal from an earlier decision, said that although Kingsley is cited as authority for that proposition in at least two textbooks, the judgment does not support that assertion.

The correct position is instead that there has to be "something in the written bill to indicate the ambit of the work but that inadequacies of description of the work done may be redressed by accompanying documents ... or by other information already in the possession of the client" (see Garry v Gwillim [2002]).

In this case, the bill of costs had not contained details of the work done by the claimant and the costs claimed were described as "professional charges". Accordingly, the judge said that "of itself, the information within the bill and invoices was sparse, although it was in my view sufficient to constitute the "something" referred to" in Gwillim. Of key importance, though, was the fact that the defendant was an experienced solicitor with knowledge of the costs regime. He was well able to query the bill and the fact that he did not seek a detailed bill and a detailed assessment strongly suggested that he had all the information which he needed. Furthermore, although there was no narrative for a certain period of time, work had been performed at the defendant's specific request, so he was fully aware of the work carried out on his behalf. Accordingly, Master Leslie had been correct to conclude that the defendant had no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the claim

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.