UK: A Summary Of Recent Developments In Insurance, Reinsurance And Litigation Law - 13/11

Last Updated: 8 April 2011
Article by Nigel Brook

Jones v Kaney Supreme Court abolishes expert witnesses' immunity from negligence claims by their clients

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/13.html

The appellant was injured in a road traffic accident. His solicitors instructed the respondent, a consultant clinical psychologist. In due course a district court ordered that the respondent meet with the expert retained by the other side and prepare a joint statement. That joint statement was damaging to the appellant's claim. It transpired that the respondent had signed the joint statement because she had felt under pressure and she had not agreed with the statement's conclusions. The district judge would not permit the appellant to change his expert and the appellant felt obliged to settle the case for less than would have been achieved had the respondent not signed the statement. The appellant's claim against the respondent for negligence was dismissed at first instance because of the long-standing principle that expert witnesses are immune from liability in negligence in relation to the performance of their duties in that capacity. However, since the issue raised a point of law of general public importance, the judge allowed the case to "leapfrog" to the Supreme Court.

By a majority of 5:2, the Supreme Court has allowed the appeal. The main reasons given by the majority for abolishing the immunity were as follows:

  1. Analogy with position for advocates. In Hall v Simons [2002], the House of Lords swept away the advocate's immunity from liability in negligence (both in court and out - but not their immunity from claims for defamation). However, in that case a distinction was drawn between advocates and expert witnesses. The Supreme Court has now held that that distinction is no longer tenable since both undertake a duty to provide services to the client.
  2. There was no basis for assuming that expert witnesses would be discouraged from providing their services or would not give full and frank evidence to the court if the immunity was removed (the so-called "chilling" factor). It was also not realistic to anticipate that they would become subject to vexatious claims. Lord Brown opined that the courts should be alert to protect expert witnesses against specious claims by disappointed litigants, "not to mention to stamp vigorously upon any sort of attempt to pressurise experts to adopt or alter opinions other than those genuinely held".
  3. Wasted costs orders and disciplinary proceedings can already be made against witnesses. There were therefore no longer any policy reasons for retaining the immunity.

Accordingly, expert witnesses are no longer immune from suit in relation to the evidence which they give in court or for the views which they express in anticipation of court proceedings. Witnesses of fact, however, remain immune from suit.

COMMENT: Despite the Supreme Court's assurances, this decision may well deter expert witnesses (such as underwriting experts) from acting, especially when the provision of expert evidence does not form the bulk of a practitioner's work. The position will be particularly difficult for jointly instructed experts, who owe duties to each of the parties who instruct them. As such, they might (as Lady Hale suggested in her dissenting opinion) be more vulnerable to claims because they are likely to disappoint at least one of those instructing them. PI underwriters may also now require additional information from professionals as to the amount of expert witness work they generally undertake and may consider an increase in premiums for those for whom this type of work forms a significant proportion of their activities.

Pine v DAS Legal Expenses

Legal expenses insurance and insured instructing barrister on direct basis/claim for damages for breach of insurance policy

The claimant wished to instruct a barrister on a public access basis (ie without going through a solicitor) in order to defend a claim being brought against her. Her home and contents insurance policy included cover for legal expenses, and that cover was provided by DAS ("the insurer"). The policy provided that the insured was free to choose an "appointed representative" but that the insurer "may choose not to accept your [ie the insured's] choice, but only in exceptional circumstances". Regulation 6 of The Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1999 provides that an insured shall be free to choose its lawyer. However, Seymour HHJ noted that the regulations do not appear to contemplate that the right to choose a lawyer might be denied by a legal expenses insurer in "exceptional circumstances". As a result, he was of the view that the "exceptional circumstances" would have to be very exceptional. He held as follows:

  1. It was a breach of the policy for the insurer to insist on the insured instructing the barrister through a solicitor. It did not matter that the insurer had "sound" reasons for wanting this (eg to have safeguards in place to ensure that the merits of the claim or defence are regularly and independently reviewed and the incurring of cost is regularly monitored). The insurer could not insist on the appointment of a solicitor as the insured's "appointed representative".
  2. There were no "exceptional circumstances" in this case. It was not sufficient that the underlying litigation was "substantial" and against well-funded defendants who were competently advised and would involve a considerable burden of paper. The fact that the insured wished to instruct the barrister on a public access basis was also "nothing like enough" to make the case exceptional (any more than if she had wished to instruct solicitors who were not prepared to enter into a standard form of agreement with the insurer).
  3. The insured was entitled to a declaration but not damages. The insured had sought an extension of the principle established in Farley v Skinner [2002] that general damages could be awarded for breach of contract if "a major or important object of the contract is to give pleasure, relaxation or peace of mind". Seymour HHJ agreed that one of the major objects of the provision of legal expenses insurance was peace of mind, but that was a long way from the facts in Farley v Skinner or other cases (such as holiday cases) where general damages have been awarded. There was no justification to extend the principle to legal expenses insurance especially as "if the principle did extend that far, then, logically, it would extend to all contracts of insurance, for all are intended to provide cover against mishap of some sort and each, to that extent, provides the insured with peace of mind".

Folgate London Market v Chaucer Insurance

Clause in settlement agreement relieving payer in event of payee's insolvency is invalid

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/328.html

Millbank was sued following an accident. Its insurers declined cover and Millbank sued the broker who had arranged cover ("F"). That claim was settled and the settlement agreement provided that F would be relieved of its obligation to pay Millbank in the event of Millbank's insolvency (by virtue of clause 11). The third party injured by Millbank joined the insurers to his action against Millbank. Millbank's administrators assigned Millbank's interest in the settlement agreement to the insurers.

Insurers then challenged the validity of clause 11. At first instance the judge held that clause 11 infringed the "anti-deprivation" principle, which "prevents the making of a valid contract by which a man's property is to remain his until bankruptcy but is on such event to pass to someone else and so be taken away from his creditors". The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal against that judgment.

F sought to argue that clause 11 was linked to to Millbank's obligation under the settlement agreement to provide F with all the assistance which it reasonably required to conduct Millbank's defence. Clause 11 was therefore intended to release F from an obligation to pay if Millbank would not be in a position to furnish that assistance. That argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal as "fanciful". Instead, this was "apparently a naked attempt" to provide that F's obligation to pay survived only so long as that payment accrued exclusively for the third party victim but would be extinguished if such payment would instead be available to Millbank's creditors in the event of its insolvency: "This is not a commercial purpose so much as a collateral device to avoid the consequences of the insolvency legislation". A purported "contracting out" of the insolvency legislation was contrary to public policy. Accordingly, the clause was invalid.

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors

Whether court should order a stay pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/587.html

The claimant bank alleged that loans which it had made to the third defendant were invalid. It commenced proceedings in the Commercial Court and the third defendants applied for a stay of those proceedings pursuant to section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ("the Act"), on the basis that the loan agreements contained an arbitration clause (providing that any disputes arising from the contract, including ones relating to its performance, breach, termination or invalidity, should be resolved at the International Commercial Arbitration Court at the Russian Federal Chamber of Commerce and Industry). In the case of Birse Construction Ltd v St David Ltd [1999], it was held that the court has a number of choices where a party submits that a contract (and the arbitration agreement contained in it) is not valid and binding. It can:

  1. determine that the arbitration agreement was made on affidavit evidence; or
  2. stay the proceedings to allow the arbitrators to decide the issue; or
  3. order the issue of whether an arbitration agreement has been concluded to be tried whilst staying the proceedings pending a decision on that issue (see CPR r62.8); or
  4. decided that there was no arbitration agreement and dismiss the application for a stay.

Prior caselaw has held that the court should not normally determine the question on affidavit evidence and the court should pursue option (2) above only in exceptional cases. The claimant argued that a fifth option could be pursued: namely, to decline to make any order and to allow the action to continue, on the the basis that the issue to be resolved is the principal issue in the action. Clarke J rejected that argument. He said it was not open to the court to adopt none of the four options and to leave the question whether the agreement relied on was valid and binding to be determined in an action. "That would be to sidestep the Act".

In this case, the judge held that it could be said that the contract (and the arbitration agreement) were entered into without authority but the contract (and arbitration agreement) had still come into existence and were only voidable (not null and void). He therefore stayed the proceedings in favour of arbitration.

Other News

1) The FSA has published a template for general insurers to notify it of actual or potential liability for UK commercial lines employers' liability insurance:

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/About/Who/Management/Teams_1/Insurance/employers/employers_liability/index.shtml

2) Bribery Act: The government has now published its guidance on how businesses can comply with the Bribery Act (which will come into force on 1 July 2011). It has also produced a short "start guide". Neither document refers specifically to insurers or insurance companies. However, it is worth noting that hospitality is not generally prohibited by the Act and the procedures which businesses will need to put in place only have to be proportionate to the size and nature of the business. The guidance also clarifies that an "associated person" will only engage criminal liability for a company where they actually represent the organisation and any bribery they commit is intended to benefit it. It is anticipated that there will not be a large number of prosecutions, and certainly not for trivial cases. Please see below for the guidance and the quick start guide:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/bribery-act-2010-guidance.pdf

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/docs/bribery-act-2010-quick-start-guide.pdf

3) Here is the government's response to the consultation on Jackson LJ's proposals for civil litigation costs reform. As well as abolishing the recovery of success fees and ATE premiums, it proposes equalising incentives for claimants and defendants to make Part 36 offers:

http://www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/docs/jackson-report-government-response.pdf

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.