UK: Welcome To The Twenty-Third Edition Of Clyde & Co’s (Re)Insurance And Litigation Caselaw Weekly Updates For 2011

Last Updated: 30 June 2011
Article by Nigel Brook

This Week's Caselaw

Beazley v Travelers

Whether insured was liable to brokers under a Deed of Indemnity and whether claim covered under PI policy/effect of subjectivities

http://www.bailii.org/recent-decisions.html#ew/cases/EWHC/Comm

Clyde & Co for claimants

Weekly Update 07/08 reported the decision in Standard Life v Oak Dedicated, in which it was held that a broker (Aon) had been negligent in failing to ensure that a policy (for the period 1998-2001) met its client's needs. Aon sought to claim against Travelers under a Deed of Indemnity. Under the Deed, Travelers had agreed to indemnify Aon for losses arising out of any event occurring before the completion of the sale by Travelers to Aon of the Minet Group of broking companies in 1997. Aon argued, in essence, that since the wording (for which it was held negligent in Standard Life) had first been inserted in 1995 when the Minet Group was the broker (and had continued to be used in subsequent years up to 1998), it was entitled to an indemnity for Minet's alleged negligence under the Deed. This argument was rejected by Clarke J. He held that liability arose "solely from and was attributable to Aon's negligence". The deed indemnified against liability "arising out of " events and this required a degree of causal connection (this was not, in the context of the deed, a proximate cause test but a "relatively strong degree of causal connection" was still required. The prior broker's "blind spot" was without causative effect until the 1998 renewal date. It was Aon's negligence (and Aon's alone) which resulted in the 1998-2001 policy not meeting the client's needs. Furthermore, earlier failures did not constitute "a continuing series of related events" as required in the Deed.

Although not required to do so, Clarke J also found that Travelers (even if it had have been held liable to Aon under the Deed) would not have been entitled to claim under its own PI cover (which had been provided by the claimants in this action). That was because the policy covered liability for claims made against Minet for breaches committed by a Minet company or employee. An argument by Travelers that the literal meaning of the words should not be permitted to prevail in order to defeat the purpose of the cover did not succeed either. The Deed and the PI policy were intended to "fit together": "Under the Deed Travelers is not liable to indemnify Aon in respect of its liabilities to Standard Life and is not insured for that purpose".

Of general interest in this decision, though, are Clarke J's comments regarding the effect of subjectivities imposed on the slip when cover was being sought for Standard Life in 1998 (and therefore whether Standard Life was in any event uninsured by the time the Deed expired). Traditionally, the courts have construed subjectivities as pre-conditions to any binding contract coming into existence. In this case, scratches were made subject to (a) reinsurance; (b) satisfactory proposal form; and (c) Y2K questionnaire. Clarke J described these as "classic qualifications of acceptance", indicating that the underwriters would not go on risk until they were met (and information had to be accurate when the proposal form/Y2K questionnaire were signed).

The judge rejected an argument that these subjectivities were routine or administrative and hence not qualifications of acceptance. However, he did accept that in theory certain subjectivities "by virtue of their content or the form of wording used or otherwise" could be treated as "administrative requirements, or stipulations that are required to be satisfied during the course of the insurance as a condition of continued coverage". Furthermore, the scratches here did not evidence or create either conditional contracts or "held covered" insurance.

Scullion v Bank of Scotland

Surveyors' negligence case and duty to buy-to-let purchaser (of possible interest to PI insurers)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/693.html

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 12/10. The case involved a claim for negligence brought by the purchaser of a flat in a buy-to-let transaction against the surveyors, who had been instructed by the mortgage lender. At first instance, the judge held that the surveyors did owe a duty of care to the purchaser. The surveyors appealed and the Court of Appeal held as follows:

(1) The judge had been entitled to conclude, on the facts, that the purchaser had relied on the valuation when deciding to proceed with the purchase of the flat.

(2) Did the surveyor appreciate (or ought he have appreciated) that the valuation would be relied on by the purchaser? There is prior caselaw to support the view that a surveyor, instructed by a potential mortgagee, can owe a duty of care to a prospective mortgagor-purchaser. Generally, though, no duty is owed to commercial developers, or those buying more expensive domestic properties, as they are expected to obtain their own surveys. In this case the purchase was of a single flat for approximately £350,000. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal found that the fact that the underlying transaction was a buy-to-let, rather than a purchase for owner-occupation, had a number of "repercussions". People who buy to let lower or middle range value properties were "as a class, likely to be richer and more commercially astute than people who buy to occupy. People who buy to let can therefore be regarded as more likely to obtain, and more able to afford, an independent valuation or survey". Furthermore, there was no evidence that those buying to let rely, to the same degree as those buying to live in a property, on valuations provided to mortgagees (rather than getting their own surveys).

A buy-to-let purchaser is also at least just as interested in a property's rental value as he is in its capital value. The surveyor was entitled to expect the purchaser to obtain his own advice on that (and, in so doing, to get advice from his own surveyor as to the capital value). For all these reasons, there was "no inherent likelihood that a purchaser, buying the Flat for the purpose of letting it out, would rely on a valuation provided to the mortgagee".

(3) Since the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, it was unnecessary to consider whether the judge had correctly assessed damages. However, Lord Neuberger MR did give his (obiter) view on this point. The judge had assessed the purchaser's damages as being the difference between the outgoings he incurred and the income which he received during his ownership of the flat.

Lord Hoffmann in SAAMCo v York Montague [1997] advised that damages should be limited "to the consequences of the [relevant] information being inaccurate." So, for example, in this case, the flat would have taken some time to let anyway, so there would have been a period during which outgoings would not have been covered in any event. Although some of the delay in renting out was "no doubt due to the initial seeking of an unrealistic level of rent, which is plainly attributable to [the surveyor's] negligent rental valuation", not all of the period of delay should be taken into account when assessing damages.

Soutzos v Asombang & Ors

Enforcement of cross-undertaking and measure of damages

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/1582.html

The claimant obtained a freezing injunction against the two defendants which prevented them from dealing with certain properties. When his claim was eventually dismissed, the defendants sought to enforce the cross-undertaking in damages which the claimant had given when applying for the freezing injunction. In essence, it was argued that, had it not been for the freezing injunction, a certain bank would have made loans of £3.5m to one of the defendants and her company. Those loans would have allowed the company to buy expensive machinery which was crucial to its plans. The loss of the loans was said to have "strangled" the fledgling business.

It was common ground between the parties that the defendants must prove that the alleged losses would not have occurred "but for" the injunction. There was no need to show that the injunction was the sole cause of loss. However, Newey J held that he should have regard to whether the company would have failed anyway later in the year (in order to avoid putting the defendants in a better position than they would have been in had the injunction never been granted). In the context of freezing injunctions, the judge also held that the defendants had to prove their loss "without any particular allowance being made in their favour".

It was fatal to the defendants case that they were unable to prove, on the facts, that the bank would have made the loans but for the injunction. That was enough to decide the case, but the judge also considered the application of the ex turpi causa principle in this case. The claimant alleged that one of the defendants (to the knowledge of the other defendant) had made fraudulent misrepresentations to the bank (the judge held that, if it applied, the ex turpi causa principle would preclude a claim by both of the defendants).

In the case of Lilly Icos [2009], Arnold J held that "the court will not award compensation under a cross-undertaking for the loss sustained by an unlawful business or where the beneficiary of the cross-undertaking has to rely to a substantial extent upon his own illegality in order to establish the loss". In this case, Newey J held that, as the bank would only have lent the money (if the injunction had not been made) because of the fraudulent misrepresentations, the ex turpi causa principle was clearly applicable.

Yukos Capital v OJSC Roseneft

Issue estoppel and act of state/non-justiciability

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/1461.html

The claimant sought to enforce four arbitration awards. These awards were set aside by the Russian Arbitrazh courts. Subsequently, the Dutch courts held that the Russian judgment should not be recognised because it was "the result of a partial and dependent judicial process". The defendant (which is wholly owned and controlled by the Russian government) refused to satisfy the awards and two preliminary issues arose in this case:

(1) Was the defendant issue estopped by the Dutch judgment from denying that the Russian judgment was the result of a partial and dependent judicial process? Hamblen J reviewed the applicable caselaw and held that, on the facts, the defendant was estopped. The defendant had sought to argue the need for caution. Hamblen J said: "Where differences in procedure make these issues difficult to determine then the Court needs to exercise caution. However, if these matters are clear then the need for caution does not arise".

(2) Act of State/non-justiciability - could the English court determine for itself whether the Russian judgment was the result of a partial and dependent judicial process? Under the Act of State principle, an English court will not adjudicate on the act of a foreign government within its territory. Hamblen J held that he was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Berezovsky v Abramovich [2011] that "the act of state doctrine only applies to challenges to the validity of the act of state relied upon." He went on: "So, if a foreign state has expropriated property within its jurisdiction, the English court must (ordinarily) accept that title has passed – whatever the motivation for, or legality of, the foreign act. However, if the validity of the act of the foreign state is not an issue that has to be determined then the act of state principle is not engaged".

An alternative argument raised by the defendant was that the the judicial abstention principle applied. Hamblen J held that this was likely to cover "disputes involving sovereign authority which can only be resolved on a state to state level", for example sensitive issues of diplomacy and controversial issues of international law. Finally, the political embarrassment principle (also raised by the defendant) would usually require a certificate or indication to that effect from the Foreign and Commonwealth issue.

Hamblen J concluded that the English court was competent to determine whether the Russian judgment was the result of a partial and dependent judicial process. However, he made it clear that he was reaching no conclusion as to the merits of the allegations made by the claimant.

JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov

Application for committal of defendant for contempt

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/1522.html

The claimant sought the committal of the defendant for contempt of court. The application notice cited some 35 allegations of contempt for breach of a freezing order. Teare J held, noting that the application was intended to bring pressure on the defendant to comply with the order, that an application limited to 3 allegations would work just as well as one with a higher number.

There was also some debate as to whether the claimant had a duty of disclosure in the context of the contempt allegations. Teare J held that it did and that it ought to disclose any document which damages its case or assists the defendant. The claimant's solicitor was therefore required to swear (within 7 days) an affidavit stating that it does not have any such document to disclose.

The claimant also sought to reserve for future determination those allegations of contempt which are not heard before trial. The defendant argued that that would conflict with observations made in Villiers v Villiers [1994] and would be an abuse of process. Teare J declined to declare that any future attempt by the claimant to bring further allegations of contempt would be an abuse of process: "whether that would be an abuse would depend upon the circumstances then prevailing and I cannot know what they will be". However, he preserved the defendant's right to seek a strike out of any further allegations.

Culkin v Wirral Independent Appeals Panel

Whether order breached indemnity principle/absence of client care letter

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1526.html

The claimant was ordered to pay the defendant's costs. He argued that this infringed the indemnity rule because a third party had earlier on agreed to pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings. Lord Phillips observed in Thornley v Lang [2003] that: "subject to any statutory exceptions, an award of costs can only be made in order to indemnify a litigant against legal costs and expenses that he has paid, or become liable to pay". However, the courts have rejected arguments that this principle is infringed where, for example, insurers instruct solicitors to act for their assured. They have found that the litigant has an independent obligation (albeit one that is unlikely to be enforced) to pay the fees of the solicitor who is acting for him.

In Thornley, the claimant had received a client care letter informing him of his liability to pay legal costs. In this case, no client care letter was sent. However, Slade J held that this "does not affect the liability of the recipient of the services of a solicitor to pay for them if he has acquiesced in the instruction of the solicitors on his behalf by a third party".

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.