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
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.