UK: (Re)insurance Weekly Update 17/11

Last Updated: 17 May 2011
Article by Nigel Brook

This Week's Caselaw

Berezovsky v Abramovich

Collateral waiver of privilege

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/1143.html

The defendant applied for an order for disclosure from the claimant of documents in his possession between the claimant's former business associate (now dead) and the claimant's former solicitors. It was agreed that those documents would normally be protected by litigation privilege. However, the defendant argued that there had been a collateral waiver of that privilege. The claimant's former associate had been interviewed by the solicitors and limited parts of the content of those interviews had been relied upon by the claimant in order to defeat the defendant's application for summary judgment. Although there had been no express waiver, Gloster J accepted that there had been collateral waiver. She concluded that "where, as here, there has been extensive deployment in interlocutory proceedings, such as a summary judgment application, of privileged material (albeit without reference to specific documents) in order to support a party's case on the substantive merits of his claim or defence, such deployment engages the collateral waiver principle, and it is then too late for the deploying party to attempt to turn the clock back".

She rejected an argument that there was no collateral waiver if the deploying party was still making up its mind as to whether to adduce the privileged evidence at trial. To hold otherwise would, in her words, have been to allow "cherry-picking of the worst kind".

The defendant had also applied for permission to re-amend the Defence. Gloster J allowed the amendments. In so doing, she relied on the recent Court of Appeal decision in Swain- Mason v Mills & Reeve [2011] (see Weekly Update 03/11) which endorsed the statements in Worldwide Corporation v GPT [1988] that the court should be less ready to allow very late amendments than it used to be in former times and that a heavy onus lies on a party seeking to make such an amendment to justify it. It will be recalled that a few weeks ago, in Bleasedale & Anor v Forster (see Weekly Update 12/11), Henderson J highlighted that Worldwide Corporation was decided in the context of an application to amend during a trial. However, in this case, the trial had not yet started when the application to amend was made.

Saverymuttu v General Medical Council

Professional misconduct case against physician who misled insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/1139.html

A Fitness to Practice Panel found that the appellant (a consultant physician) had dishonestly misled private health insurers by using an inappropriate code when claiming payment from them. The use of this code resulted in a higher payment by the insurers. The appellant argued that his use of the code had not been incorrect according to the classification system adopted by the Office for Population, Censuses and Surveys (the system used primarily to record clinical activities in the NHS). This system had been used by the insurers as their starting point but they had adapted it.

Nicol J agreed with the Panel that: "The insurers' codes are no more than a form of language which the insurers adopt to assist their assessors to deal with claims from doctors efficiently and fairly. Because the insurers could choose their own language, it is not really apt to say that their choice of language was "correct" or "incorrect". The insurers' codes meant whatever the insurers decided." Furthermore, the appellant had been aware of the fact that (whatever his own view on the insurers' coding) he was incorrectly and dishonestly claiming. Although the position might have been different had the appellant included a narrative with his invoice, this had not been done. As the finding of dishonesty stood, the appellant conceded that he could not successfully challenge the sanction of suspension.

TTMI SARL v Statoil ASA

Whether parties had entered into an arbitration agreement and effect of contract coming into existence because of performance

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/1150.html

This case involved a challenge pursuant to section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 ("the Act"). The claimant challenged the arbitrator's decision to strike out the claim on the ground that there was no contract entered into between the claimant and the defendant and thus no arbitration agreement between them. Much of the case involves a factual dispute but there are some points of wider interest in the judgment:

(1) The approach in a challenge under section 67. There has been some recent judicial debate as to whether the hearing of a section 67 appeal should take the form of a review or a re-hearing. Recent cases have, however, supported the position that it is a rehearing. In this case, Beatson J said that in the case of Dallah Real Estate v Government of Pakistan [2010] (see Weekly Update 41/10) the Supreme Court confirmed (albeit in the context of a challenge under section 103(2)(b) of the Act at the time of enforcement) that a section 67 challenge should take the form of a re-hearing rather than a review.

(2) The judge found that a contract had come into existence between the parties because of performance by the claimant instead of the entity named in a recap email. The defendant sought to argue that the Act did not apply because there was no "arbitration agreement in writing" as required by section 5 of the Act. Accordingly, it was argued that the claimant could not apply for relief under section 67. This argument was rejected by Beatson J. He found, on the facts, that there had been a "reference to terms which are in writing" (as referred to in section 5). He added that even if this had not been the case, he would have accepted that there had been an unwritten agreement which included an arbitration clause and "accordingly, I would have held that, as a result of the saving in section 81 of the 1996 Act, the arbitration could proceed at common law".

Withers LLP v Rybak & Ors

Whether solicitors had a retaining lien over monies held in a client account

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1151.html

A dispute arose between R and L as to who was entitled to the proceeds of a property sale. A court order required that the proceeds be paid into the client account of R's solicitors. Following judgment in favour of L, R assigned to L all of its interest in the monies held in the solicitors' client account. However, the solicitors claimed that they had a retaining lien over those monies because they had outstanding fees owed to them. Morgan J concluded as follows:

(1) L did not have a security interest in the monies held in the client account. The monies paid into that account following the property sale belonged to R and the court order (much like a freezing order) did not impose any obligation on R to pay the monies to L. Thus L had no priority over a possible lien in favour of the solicitors.

(2) Did the solicitors have a retaining lien over the monies? In other words, were the solicitors entitled to retain the monies already in their possession until they were paid the costs due to them in their professional capacity? The crucial issue was whether the monies were held by the solicitors in their capacity as solicitors for R, or whether the monies had come into their possession for a particular purpose which prevented them from asserting a retaining lien. L argued that the monies were paid into the client account because it was a secure and neutral place and it was mere "happenstance" that this account was used - the monies could equally have been paid into court or into an account with L's solicitors (or a bank account held by R).

Morgan J rejected that argument. The solicitors held the monies in their professional capacity as R's solicitors (having acted for R during the lengthy litigation between it and L). There was nothing in the order itself which altered this position and "In my judgment, it is not right in the present case to replace the ordinary relationship of a solicitor to his client, in relation to monies in a client account, with an implied tripartite contractual relationship involving [the solicitors], their client and L". Under the court order, R could apply to the court for an order permitting it to pay (amongst other things), legal expenses from the account.

Systemcare v Services Design

Non-party costs order against managing director

http://www.bailii.org/cgibin/ markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/546.html&query=title+(+systemcare+)&met hod=Boolean"

Following judgment in favour of the claimant, the judge made a non-party costs order against the defendant company's managing director and majority shareholder under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The managing director appealed against that decision on various grounds: (1) The judge had found that the director had run a counterclaim in the full knowledge that there was no prospect of his company being able to pay the costs awarded against it. The director argued that the claimant had never asserted this and the Court of Appeal accepted that the judge had erred in this respect. However, the Court of Appeal found that the judge had not based his decision to make the order on this finding. Nor was the judge required to consider at what point the defendant company had become insolvent. A non-party costs order can be justified even if the party is not insolvent during the proceedings.

In this case, the defendant had been able to pay its debts as they fell due because the ondemand loans due to the director had not been demanded. This kind of financial support can amount to funding and so, for all practical purposes, the director had funded the litigation. (2) The director had not been warned that he might be personally liable for costs. The Court of Appeal found that, had he been warned, he might have appealed against the original judgment. However, it was held that there had been no prospect of a successful appeal and so the director had not suffered any prejudice.

(3) The Court of Appeal also rejected an argument that weight should be given to the probability that the application was motivated by the claimant's "resentment" at its inability to obtain an effective order for costs. It was found that there were sufficient factors in this case to justify the order. The counterclaim had been, at best, fanciful and, at worst, "trumped up".

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
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions