UK: Weekly Update - A Summary Of Recent Developments In Insurance, Reinsurance And Litigation Law – 7/11

Last Updated: 27 February 2011
Article by Nigel Brook

CONTENTS

Sharon's Bakers v Axa

A case on whether insurers were entitled to avoid for moral hazard and "fraudulent means or devices"

X v Y

A decision on whether an arbitration claim was out of time

Nanjing Tianshun v Orchard Tankers

A case on failure to comply with a 30 day deadline in an arbitration clause

Hydropool Hot Tubs v Roberjot

A case on dispensing with the need to serve an order personally on a defendant

Rolf v De Gijerin

A Court of Appeal case concerning the failure to beat a Part 36 offer and the costs consequences of an unreasonable refusal to mediate

In the Matter of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc

A case dealing with objections to a Part VII transfer

RBS v Hicks & Ors

A decision on anti-suit injunctions and USC s) 1782

This Week's Caselaw

Sharon's Bakers v Axa

Insurers entitled to avoid for moral hazard/fraudulent means or devices

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/210.html

The claimant insured (a bakery) sought an indemnity from the defendant insurers following a fire at its premises. The insurers defended the claim on two grounds:

1) There had been a non-disclosure of material facts - not relating to the insurance but to a financial leasing transaction. This was said to constitute a "moral hazard" and accordingly the insured was entitled to avoid. The insured accepted that allegations of dishonesty must be disclosed to an insurer when applying for insurance (see North Star Shipping v Sphere Drake [2006]). However, it argued that the insured was under no duty to disclose where the insured does not believe himself to have acted dishonestly and no-one has suggested otherwise at the material time (even if the insured is aware that another person might potentially suspect dishonesty). On the facts of the case, though, Blair J concluded that the insured had been aware that a false invoice for equipment had been sent to the financing company for the purpose of obtaining a loan which would not otherwise have been extended. This was a material fact which ought to have been disclosed to insurers: "False documents are inimical to commerce, and in my view, this factual scenario also falls within the "moral hazard" principle". It made no difference here that there had been valuable equipment on the premises which was damaged in the (accidental) fire, or that the financing company had not apparently been concerned about how the insured had acquired its equipment.

2) Following the fire, the insured submitted the false invoice in support of its claim and this therefore amounted to "fraudulent means or devices" in aid of its claim. This argument was also accepted by the judge. The invoice was provided as evidence of a true sale and purchase agreement which had not taken place and was used to support the insurance claim. Again, it made no difference that the insured claimed to have a perfectly valid set of documentation to show how it had acquired the equipment and the judge had rejected any suggestion that the equipment was of dubious provenance or worth less than the insured claimed. Accordingly, all the benefit under the policy was forfeited.

X v Y

Whether arbitration claim was out of time

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/152.html

An arbitration clause in a charterparty provided that a claim would be time-barred unless the claimant's arbitrator was appointed "within 12 months of final discharge or termination of this Charterparty". The claimant, X, argued that the claim had therefore become timebarred twelve months after the first date of discharge. The defendant, Y, countered that its claim was not time-barred as the appointment was made within 12 months of the date of termination. The arbitrator agreed with Y and X appealed to the High Court. Burton J dismissed the appeal. He agreed that "final discharge" meant the discharge of the cargo for the voyage in respect of which the claim is made (here, the first voyage out of three). However, on the wording of the clause, either trigger date could be used. There was no need to add in the words "whichever is the later" (or, for that matter, "whichever is the earlier"). There was no "black hole" here, just two alternative trigger dates. There was no need to adopt the contra proferentem rule (although, if the judge had, that would have worked against X in this case).

Nanjing Tianshun v Orchard Tankers

Failure to comply with 30 day deadline in arbitration clause

http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2010/164.html&query=title+(+nanjing+)&method=boolean

A shipbuilding contract provided that the seller had the right to dispute the buyer's cancellation by instituting arbitration "if such institution of arbitration is made within thirty (30) days of the Buyer's cancellation". The sellers sought to dispute the buyer's cancellation but failed to comply with the 30 day deadline. The buyers argued that the sellers' claim was therefore time-barred. The sellers countered that any failure to institute arbitration proceedings timeously did not bar the right to dispute the cancellation but merely barred the remedy to be obtained by way of an arbitral award. That argument was rejected by Steel J. It was only in the arbitration that the sellers could dispute the buyer's cancellation.

The judge reached this conclusion based on all the terms of the contract. He also found that there would be no commercial purpose in granting the sellers an option to either institute a private arbitration within 30 days or to be able to institute public litigation after 30 days but within 6 years. The judge also referred to a textbook by Mustill and Boyd in which it was stated that the courts will lean in favour of construing clauses such as the one in this case as "claim-barring" rather than "remedy barring" (because it is easy to see why parties to a commercial contract would want to bar a claim entirely but not that a stale claim should be litigated rather than arbitrated). Nor were express words needed to bar a right to start legal proceedings.

Hydropool Hot Tubs v Roberjot

Dispensing with need to serve order personally on defendant

http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/121.html&query=title+(+hydropool+)&method=boolean

The claimant obtained a court order against the defendants. This was addressed to both defendants but it was not personally served on either defendant. RSC Order 45 (which continues to have effect post-CPR) rule 7 provides that, where a person who fails to comply with an order, the order cannot be enforced by an order for committal or writ of sequestration if it has not been served personally on that person. However, the court does have discretion to dispense with personal service (including retrospectively - see Davy International v Tazzyman [1997]). "With some hesitation", Arnold J held that it was just to dispense with personal service in this case. The defendants were represented by solicitors and counsel (who would have explained to the defendants the consequences of disobedience) and the applications for the orders had been made on notice. The defendants had not opposed the orders and they were clearly aware of them. Furthermore, the breaches were not trivial and nor were they committed inadvertently.

Rolf v De Gijerin

Failure to beat Part 36 offer and costs consequences of unreasonable refusal to mediate

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/78.html

Rix LJ described this as a "sad case about lost opportunities for mediation". The claimant homeowner sued her builder. The claimant made two part 36 offers, which the defendant rejected. At trial, she did not beat her offer and the judge ordered her to pay the defendant's costs from the date on which the first Part 36 offer expired, on the basis that her offer had been too high. The claimant appealed that costs decision.

The Court of Appeal agreed that the judge had erred fundamentally in his appreciation of the significance of the Part 36 offer: "There is nothing about the [Part 36] procedure which states that an offeror is to be prejudiced as to costs because he has expressed a willingness to accept less than his open position". Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the Court of Appeal held that the right order was that there should be no order as to costs. In coming to this decision, it was noted that an unreasonable refusal to mediate can have costs consequences. Rix LJ also referred to the Jackson Report on Civil Litigation Costs, where the virtue of ADR, particularly in low value construction disputes, was highlighted. In this case, the claimant had offered to mediate several times and the defendant had had no reasonable grounds for refusing this offer. Although it was possible that settlement discussions or mediation would not have produced a solution, such discussions or mediation "would have had reasonable prospects of success".

In the Matter of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc

Dealing with objections to a Part VII transfer

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/260.html

In this case, Briggs J gave his reasons for sanctioning a scheme for the transfer of certain insurance business from the UK branch of Sompo Japan Insurance Inc ("Sompo") to Transfercom. Various objections to the scheme had been raised by certain transferring policyholders. Some of the objections had been as follows:

  1. There would be a reduction in the transferring policyholders' security. The judge held that reduction in the confidence level attributable to the transferring policyholders from 99.88% to 99.6% was not material - that was still a satisfactory level of security. Nor was it significant that there was a corresponding increase in the security available to Transfercom's existing policyholders - this had not been achieved at the expense of the transferring policyholders.
  2. The independent expert had relied on research carried out by other qualified professionals. The judge accepted that this was "inevitable and acceptable", especially as he had done so only after his own sufficient review of their work.
  3. It was said that Sompo had no rational commercial purpose for the transfer. The judge rejected this - a desire to achieve finality was in itself a rational commercial purpose.
  4. Objection was made that "since probably a majority in value of the transferring policies were governed by laws other than that of the UK, there was a serious risk that the scheme would be legally ineffective to bring about a substitution of Transfercom for Sompo as reinsurer". Briggs J agreed with Richards J that, provided the evidence showed that a sufficient proportion of transferring policies were governed by English law (and therefore by FSMA), so that the court's sanction of the scheme could not be characterised as acting in vain, then the risk that transferring policies governed by non-English law might not be validly altered as to reinsurer by the scheme, was not a persuasive reason to refuse sanction. This was subject, though, to the independent expert confirming (as he did) that there was no unacceptable level of uncertainty or unfairness.

RBS v Hicks & Ors

Anti-suit injunctions and USC s) 1782

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/287.html

This case involved an application to discharge an anti-suit injunction. Floyd J rejected that application for a number of factual reasons. He was then asked to consider whether the defendant to the English proceedings could (if it wanted to) still make an application under USC s)1782. This section of a US statute gives the US courts power to grant assistance to litigants in aid or proceedings in foreign courts (by ordering a US resident to give evidence for use in the foreign proceedings). Floyd J held that he should apply the general principle that the English courts do not exercise control over the manner in which litigants choose to obtain evidence. The proceedings in England in this case had not reached a stage where it could be said that an application under USC s)1782 would "necessarily be abusive, neither has any application for a 1782 order been formulated". However, to counter the objection that an application can be made under USC s)1782 ex parte, the judge allowed applications under USC s)1782 but only if 7 days' prior notice is given to any respondent to such an application of the intention to issue proceedings under that statute.

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.