UK: Weekly Update - A Summary Of Recent Developments In Insurance, Reinsurance And Litigation Law - 27/11

Last Updated: 27 July 2011
Article by Nigel Brook


Swindon & Ors v Quinn Insurance Ltd

Whether claim by insured was time-barred/when did the "claim" arise

A third party alleged that the insured had negligently caused a fire which damaged its property. The insured denied liability but notified its public liability insurer. After the third party had written a letter of claim to the insured, the insurer denied liability (on the ground that the insured had breached a policy condition). In due course, a default judgment was entered against the insured and damages were later assessed by the court.

General Condition 16 of the public liability policy provided as follows: "Any dispute between the Insured and the [Insurer] on our liability in respect of a claim...shall be referred within nine months of the dispute arising to an arbitrator...If the dispute has not been referred to arbitration within the aforesaid nine month period, then the claim shall be deemed to have been abandoned and not recoverable thereafter" (emphasis added). It was common ground at first instance that "claim" in General Condition 16 meant the claim by the insured against the insurer (and not a claim by a third party against the insured).

Post Office v Norwich Union [1967] held that until the liability of the insured has been established, and the amount of liability has been ascertained, an insured cannot sue its insurer (for a money claim under the policy). However, the trial judge held that, as an insured can seek a declaration that the insurer is in breach of a policy obligation, in this case a dispute had arisen as soon as the insurer had denied liability. Since that dispute was not referred to arbitration within 9 months, the judge held a claim against the insurer was now time-barred. An appeal was brought and the Court of Appeal has now allowed that appeal.

The Court of Appeal regarded the judge's decision as unfair, since it required the insured to have started arbitration within 9 months of the insurer repudiating liability, even though the insured was denying liability for the fire and its liability to the third party would probably not have been established during the 9-month period. Sir Henry Brooke said that no dispute could have arisen between the insured and the insurer on the insurer's liability unless and until the insured's liability was established. Rix LJ, on the other hand, accepted that it is possible for an insured to sue for a declaration rather than an indemnity but posed the question "have the parties agreed for a 9 month time bar even in a situation where the only dispute which has arisen between the insurer and the insured is the wider dispute about cover under the policy, but where the insured does not as yet have a claim under the policy". He decided that the parties had not agreed that. The clause did not refer to a "potential claim" and he thought that "its talk of "the claim shall have been deemed to have been abandoned"...emphasises to my mind that what the clause is talking about is a claim for an indemnity which an insured is entitled to make against his insurer...In other words, I would regard "claim" in this context as being synonymous with the assertion of a purported cause of action". The insured in this case could not have made a claim under the policy at the time that the insurer repudiated liability. It could only have notified an incident which might give rise to a third party claim.

Reference was made to the case of Walker v Pennine Insurance [1980]. There, Roskill LJ had said that "it seems to me that you can, within the present clause, have a claim by the assured for an indemnity against a potential liability, long in advance of any claim against the assured by a third party being agreed or determined either as to liability or quantum or both". Sir Henry Brook said that Walker (insofar as it might be taken to impugn the authority of Post Office) should not be followed. Rix LJ sought to confine Walker to motor policies only and said that "I am satisfied that in the context of a public liability policy...the essence of a claim under the policy is a request for indemnity on the basis of an established cause of action in respect of a third party claim where liability and quantum have been ascertained".

COMMENT: The Court of Appeal was clearly concerned in this case that the authority of the Post Office case should not be impugned. However, in the Post Office case the insurers had not sought to repudiate liability (they had only argued that the claim under the policy was premature). Given that it is possible for an insured to seek a declaration from the courts that an insurer has wrongfully repudiated liability (and so, for example, require the insurer to meet defence costs even before the insured's liability has been established), it might be argued that the judge at first instance was correct to find that the claim against the insurer had arisen as soon as liability under the policy was repudiated. However, the Court of Appeal was clearly swayed by the argument that it is unfair to require an insured to commence arbitration/litigation against its insurer before it even knows whether it is liable to the third party. Insurers can protect themselves, though, through careful drafting of a dispute resolution clause (for example, by expressly referring to "potential" claims). It remains to be seen whether the insurer will appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

Barclays Bank v Nylon Capital

Determining the scope of an expert determination clause

The Court of Appeal was required to decide whether it should stay proceedings on the ground that the issue in question fell within the expert determination clause contained in an agreement between the parties. The Court of Appeal held that, although there is no statute governing expert determination (as there is for arbitration), it is clear that "in any case where a dispute arises as to the jurisdiction of an expert, a court is the final decision maker as to whether the expert has jurisdiction, even if a clause purports to confer that jurisdiction on the expert in a manner that is final and binding".

The question arose, though, whether the expert should first determine his own jurisdiction (even if one of the parties is seeking a determination by the courts). The Court of Appeal held as follows:

  1. The approach to an expert determination clause is not the same as that which must now be taken for an arbitration clause. It should generally be presupposed that the parties intended certain types of dispute to be resolved by expert determination and other types by the court (or arbitrators, if applicable).
  2. Although the courts will not generally intervene in a matter which is within the jurisdiction of the expert, the situation is different where the issue is solely one of law relating to the scope of the expert's mandate.
  3. If the parties have chosen a certain procedure, and the dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the expert, then they must be held to it, whatever view might be taken as to the appropriateness of the procedure for the matters submitted to the expert. However, the issue in this case was whether the expert had jurisdiction and not the interpretation of the mandate given to the expert.
  4. In the interests of justice and convenience, the court should determine the issue of the expert's jurisdiction and it was neither just nor convenient to defer that decision until after the expert has determined whether he has jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal concluded that on the facts of this case the expert did not have jurisdiction to decide the issue and so the proceedings were not stayed. Two further points were made by the Master of the Rolls in this case:
    1. He believed that there is a "powerful argument" for saying that (subject to the contract terms) a valuation by an expert (even where the valuation is agreed to be "final and binding") can be challenged in court if it can be shown to have been arrived at on the basis of a mistake of law. There will be no basis for a challenge, though, where the expert has not expressed a view on the issue of law when reaching his valuation.
    2. The parties had asked the court not to give judgment after they reached a settlement. The Master of the Rolls said that the court retains a right to proceed to give judgment where a case has been fully argued (whether at first instance or on appeal). The court will need to weigh up competing factors when deciding whether to give judgment - for example, how far the preparation of any judgment had got by the time of the request, whether the issues in the case are of general interest and the parties' desire for commercial privacy.

PT Theiss v PT KPC & Anor

Application for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996

The parties entered into an agreement which provided for arbitration in the event of a dispute. There was also another agreement ("the CDA") which provided for the nonexclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. Arbitration was commenced and when one of the parties subsequently commenced an action in England, the other party applied for a stay under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. The issue in the case was whether the English proceedings were "in respect of a matter which under the arbitration agreement is to be referred to arbitration". How should that issue be determined? Blair J adopted the approach of the Australian courts in holding that the court should identify the "substance of the controversy" (and not just the particular terms in which the claimant has sought to formulate its claim in court).

The judge also noted that there is no presumption that a jurisdiction or arbitration agreement in contract A, even if expressed in wide language, is intended to capture disputes under contract B (see Dicey & Morris, Conflict of Laws para 12-094). He held that there is nothing unusual about submitting a contractual dispute to arbitration, whilst referring matters relating to security to the jurisdiction of one or more courts. In this case, the CDA, although it did not refer directly to "security", operated as an escrow arrangement: "In my view, the claim in the English action is a claim under the CDA concerned with a procedure whereby the sums in dispute are to be set aside until the dispute is determined. It raises a discrete claim, related to, but distinct from, the underlying dispute arising under the [main agreement] which is the subject of the arbitration". Accordingly, the application for a stay was refused.

Fulham Football Club v Richards & Anor

Arbitrability arguments and the meaning of section 1(b) of the Arbitration Act 1996

At first instance the judge stayed a petition by the appellant under section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the petition was brought under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 on the ground that a company's affairs were being conducted in a manner which was unfairly prejudicial to some or all of its members). One of the arguments raised by the appellant was that the relevant arbitration clause should be construed so as to exclude a dispute about unfair prejudice.

Section 1(b) of the 1996 Act provides that "the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest". Patten LJ held that this clause merely affirms the right of the parties to determine the method of resolution of their arbitrable disputes and is not concerned with whether the dispute itself is arbitrable. However, Rix LJ said he would "discount the doubts of Patten LJ about the subsection dealing with arbitrability" and that the autonomy of the parties extended to the choice to arbitrate. Longmore LJ held that the test in section 1(b) was demanding and saw no reason to find that disputes about the internal management of a company should in general be prohibited.

It was recognised that the 1996 Act does not indicate the basis for challenging an application for a stay on grounds of arbitrability. The Court of Appeal held that it did not follow from the inability of an arbitrator to make a winding-up order affecting third parties that it should be impossible for members to agree to submit disputes between themselves to arbitration: "It is necessary to consider in relation to the matters in dispute in each case whether they engage third party rights or represent an attempt to delegate to the arbitrators what is a matter of public interest which cannot be determined within the limitations of a private contractual process". There are also a number of situations prescribed by statute where the right of a party to apply to a court is expressly preserved. In such cases it will be possible to defeat an application for a stay under section 9. However, there was no statutory restriction or rule of public policy in this case to prevent the parties agreeing to submit their dispute to arbitration. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Merchant International v NAK

Whether Ukrainian Supreme Court judgment should be recognised

The claimant obtained a judgment in its favour in the Ukraine in 2006. In April 2010 it sought to enforce the judgment against the defendant in England. However, in April 2011 the Ukrainian Supreme Court granted the defendant's application to cancel the Ukrainian judgment. The issue in this case was therefore whether that Supreme Court judgment should be recognised by the English courts. If it lacked due process, then the claimant could enforce the original Ukrainian judgment (by obtaining an English judgment against the defendant at common law).

Steel J rejected the argument that the case of Yukos v Rosneft [2011] (see Weekly Update 23/11) should be distinguished because it concerned an arbitration award rather than a judgment. He held that it "is well established that a foreign judgment is impeachable on the ground that its recognition would be contrary to public policy". The Ukraine is party to the European Convention on Human Rights. The judge found that the Supreme Court decision breached article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair hearing) because it involved a clear disregard of the principles of legal certainty. In particular, the Supreme Court had allowed the entire case (and more) to be re-opened by reference solely to one issue (and there was no evidence that that issue could not have been raised earlier on).

Steel J rejected an argument, based on the decision in Government of USA v Montgomery No.2 [2004], that the non-recognition of the Supreme Court judgment could only be justified if there had been a "flagrant breach" of Article 6. He found that the breach here was flagrant but, in any event, the requirement for a flagrant breach arose only in the case of a decision of the courts of a non-Convention country.

Milsom & Ors v Ablyazov

Request for restrictions on disclosure pursuant to worldwide freezing order/receivership order

  1. There was no ground for restricting the receivers' use of pre-existing documents (ie documents which have an existence independent of, and prior to, requests addressed by the receivers to the defendant). It is well-established under English law that the privilege against self-incrimination does not extend to pre-existing documents which exist "independent of the will of the suspect" (see R v S [2008]).
  2. Provision of information by the receivers to the bank's solicitors was subject to a condition that the solicitors could not pass that information to the bank itself. Roth J accepted, though, that this did not give the defendant adequate protection since the bank was conducting the contempt proceedings through its solicitors. However, the judge said that the privilege against self-incrimination is not an absolute right and it was sufficient that the bank's solicitors and the bank provide an undertaking that information derived solely from the receivers could not be used against the defendant in the contempt proceedings without the permission of the court.

Meritz Fire & Marine Insurance v Jan De Nul & Anor

Whether insurers liable to pay under a guarantee following transfer by debtor to a third party

Weekly Update 1/11 reported the first instance decision in this case. The trial judge found that an insurer was liable to pay under a guarantee which it had issued to the buyers in order to guarantee the repayment of advance payments made by the buyers to a shipbuilder (HWS), in the event of premature termination of of the shipbuilding contract for certain specified reasons. The shipbuilding contracts were (without the knowledge or consent of the buyers or the insurers) transferred to another company (and then on to a third company). It was found at first instance that, as a result of that transfer, HWS was discharged (under Korean law) from its obligations under the shipbuilding contract. In any event, HWS was dissolved on the same day as the transfer.

At first instance, there was a lot of debate as to how the guarantee issued by the insurer should be categorised. However, the Court of Appeal said that the appeal must be resolved primarily by reference to the words used in the guarantee. It found that the guarantee was intended to be operated against documents (without regard to the underlying contract). It was therefore sufficient that the buyer certify that it had demanded a refund from HWS and that HWS had failed to make the refund. It did not matter that HWS was not liable to make the refund after the transfer (or that it was unable to make the refund because it had been dissolved).

The Court of Appeal therefore rejected the insurer's argument that it had taken on the risk of HWS's defaults and not those of their successors (whose financial integrity or business acumen they would not have previously assessed). The insurer had, on the facts, had the opportunity to object to the transfer but had not taken that opportunity.

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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Nigel Brook
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
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
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (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

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’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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.