UK: Weekly Update - A Summary Of Recent Developments In Insurance, Reinsurance And Litigation Law - 28/11

Last Updated: 15 August 2011
Article by Nigel Brook

This Week's Caselaw

W v Veolia Environmental Services

Whether defendant's insurers have to pay claimant's hire charges for a replacement car (where claimant has already paid those charges)

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/2020.html

Following a motor accident caused by the defendant, the claimant hired a replacement car. Hire charges of £138,000 were incurred. The replacement car was provided by Accident Exchange and the claimant entered into two hire agreements with Accident Exchange. Under those hire agreements, the claimant's liability for the hire charges is deferred while a claim for hire costs is pursued against the defendant. In case the hire costs (and legal expenses) are not recovered by the defendant, these are insured by Accident Exchange (that policy being underwritten by another insurer).

Following the entry into force of certain consumer regulations in the UK, the hire agreements were possibly unenforceable. Accordingly, the defendant's insurers argued that they were not liable to pay the hire charges. They sought to rely on the House of Lords case of Dimond v Lovell [2002], which held that if hire charges were incurred under an unenforceable consumer credit agreement, the claimant could not recover them from the defendant as this would offend the rule against double recovery (since the claimant had no legal obligation to pay the hire charges and so had obtained the replacement car for free).

However, in this case, matters were complicated by the fact that Accident Exchange (as insurer) had, as a tactical move, already paid the hire charges to itself (as supplier of the replacement car). Did that mean that the hire charges were recoverable?

Mackie J held that they were indeed recoverable. Although the hire charges had not been paid by the claimant personally (but by his insurers), they should be treated as having been made by the claimant. Since the claimant had paid, there was no risk of a double recovery: "The risk of a windfall to a claimant who obtains payment from the defendant but then declines to pay the hire car provider on legal grounds falls away. The insurer is subrogated to the position of the claimant". However, in this case, the policy limit under the policy had been £100,000. Since insurers had been under no contractual liability to pay out more than that limit, anything above that amount was not a good faith payment and was not recoverable.

As for the regulations, the judge held that the first hire agreement was unenforceable because it was sold to the claimant at his home and business address. However, the second agreement was enforceable because it was sent to him in the post and returned by him without a further visit by Accident Exchange's representative.

Finally, the judge held that the claimant was entitled to the cost of hiring a new and valuable Bentley, despite his own car being an old Bentley worth not more than £16,000. The claimant passed the "impecunious" test laid down by the House of Lords in Dimond, because he did not have "the benefit of a recognised credit or debit card". In this case, he had had difficulty with credit cards and could not have paid anything like the spot rate on his cards. The anomaly here was said to be due to the defendant's "generous concessions" - (it had not challenged the reasonableness of the replacement car) - and not the legal test.

Dowans Holding v Tanzania Electric Supply

Whether foreign arbitration award had become enforceable in England and application for adjournment pending appeal in the foreign jurisdiction

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/1957.html

The defendant applied to set aside permission to enforce an ICC award in England (or to adjourn the issue of recognition/enforcement of the award). Section 103(2)(f) of the Arbitration Act 1996 provides that recognition or enforcement may be refused if an award "has not yet become binding ...or has been set aside or suspended by a competent authority of the country in which..it was made". In this case, the award was made in Tanzania and the defendant has filed a petition with the Tanzanian court seeking to have the award set aside. That application will not be heard until September 2011 and any further appeal could take around 12 months or more.

Burton J rejected the defendant's argument that the award was not yet binding. Indeed, the parties themselves had agreed that the award was binding. The defendant had sought to argue that because it was not yet enforceable in Tanzania, that prevented it being enforced as a binding award in England. The judge rejected that argument. It did not matter whether or not the Tanzanian court regarded the award as binding.

The judge had a general discretion whether or not to enforce the award under section 103(2) (even in the absence of an exception under that section). He said he should exercise that discretion in the same way in which he would exercise his discretion to adjourn under section 103(5). Section 103(5) provides "Where an application for the setting aside or suspension of the award has been made to such a competent authority as is mentioned in (2)(f), the court before which the award is sought to be relied upon may, if it considers it proper, adjourn the decision on the recognition or enforcement of the award".

Burton J said that he would approach the question by considering the prospect of success for the defendant's application in Tanzania ("in the confident expectation" that in applying Tanzanian law, "the Tanzanian court will have full regard to the international approach to the undesirability of interfering with the careful decisions by arbitrators on issues which, by virtue of an arbitration agreement such as in this case, have been referred to those arbitrators in order for them to make a final and binding decision"). He concluded that he could not say that the defendant's chances of success of setting aside the award in this case were fanciful and so he allowed an adjournment, on condition that security be provided (especially since the defendant intended to continue purchasing equipment, and hence there might be insufficient assets in this jurisdiction to subsequently enforce against). Accordingly, Burton J ordered security in the sum of US$ 5m as a condition for the grant of an adjournment.

Robins v Kordowski & Anor

Application for default judgment and effect of procedural error

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/1912.html

One of the issues in this case was that the claimant had made a procedural error when applying for default judgment. CPR r12.4(1) provides that a request can be filed using the relevant practice form where the claim is for a money judgment only. CPR r12.4(2) requires the claimant to bring an application under CPR r23 if the claim "consists of or includes a claim for any other remedy".

In this case, the claim included a claim for an injunction but the claimant requested a default judgment under CPR r12.4(1). The defendant sought to argue that the effect of that error was that the claimant had abandoned its claim for an injunction and could no longer pursue it. Tugendhat J rejected that argument. He said that the defendant's argument would lead to "an unnecessary and unjust result". Instead, the effect of the error was that if the claimant wished to pursue the injunction (ie the non-money claim) it would have to make an application to the court. The judge said that even if he was wrong on this point, he would have exercised his discretion under CPR r3.10 to remedy the error.

Berezovsky v Hine & Ors

Whether claimant could call expert to give evidence on contemporary Russian history

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2011/1777.html

The claimant sought permission to serve an expert report dealing with various issues including business practice in Russian in the 1990s and early 2000s. The claimant intended to rely on an expert in the field of contemporary Russian history. It is wellestablished that a court must be satisfied that expert evidence is properly admissible and will genuinely assist the trial judge in determining the matters which are in issue. In this case, the underlying litigation concerned two issues of fact: (1) whether a defendant used words intentionally to convey a threat (to influence the Russian government to expropriate the claimant's business interest); and (2) whether that defendant orally agreed to hold certain shares on trust for the claimant.

The defendant argued that the expert's evidence would likely consist of opinion to the effect that similar things had happened in other cases or would be "no more than gossip or highly contentious or controversial matters which were of marginal relevance anyway". Gloster J held that, although there was force in that argument, the court would need an understanding of the contemporaneous political and/or economic situation in Russia and the history of Russia since 1990. Although that evidence could theoretically be obtained from books and articles, it was more practical to have that evidence put forward by a historian or economist (who could summarise the relevant material). Permission was therefore granted, but without prejudice to any argument which the defendant might wish to raise on admissibility after the actual evidence was adduced.

Masri v Consolidated Contractors

Whether a company has an automatic right of appeal from a finding of contempt of court

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/898.html

The respondent companies were found to be in contempt of court. The issue in this case was whether they had an automatic right of appeal to the Court of Appeal or whether they needed the permission of either the judge or the Court of Appeal to bring the appeal.

It is common ground that an individual who is committed to prison for contempt of court may appeal as of right under the Administration of Justice Act 1960. There was no general requirement for permission to appeal under the 1960 Act - that innovation was introduced by the Access to Justice Act 1999, which provides (in relevant part) that permission is required where the appeal is from a High Court decision "except where the appeal is against (i) a committal order".

The companies sought to argue that "committal order" means "any order in relation to a contemnor which is part of the process leading to punishment for contempt. It matters not that a corporate contemnor cannot be committed to prison. It has, and is intended to have, the same protection as that enjoyed by individuals whose liberty is at stake."

That argument was rejected by the Court of Appeal. The natural meaning of the words is an order whereby the individual to whom it relates is committed, and a corporation cannot be committed. Accordingly, permission to appeal was required.

Towers v Premier Waste Management

Allegations of breach of loyalty and conflict of interest by a director - of possible interest to D&O insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/923.html

At first instance it was found that a director had breached his duty of loyalty and his duty to avoid a conflict between his personal interests and his duty to the company (the claim was based on equitable principles because the events in question pre-dated the Companies Act 2006 (although the Court of Appeal said that regard could still be had to the statute, since it expresses the essence of the rules and principles which it replaced)).

In this case, the director had acquired equipment for his personal use by way of a free, undisclosed and unapproved loan from one of the company's customers. The Court of Appeal agreed with the judge's decision. It did not matter that the director had not made a significant profit from the equipment or that it would have been of no value to the company. It was enough that he had disloyally deprived the company of the ability to consider whether or not it objected to the diversion of an opportunity offered by one of its customers. It did not matter, either, that there had been no evidence that the company would have taken the opportunity, nor that it had not in fact suffered any loss. Other factors which were irrelevant included the fact that the director did not have a corrupt motive and had received only a small benefit, and that if there had been no free loan, he would have hired equivalent equipment in the market.

Finally, there could be no criticism of the brevity of the judge's decision: "A judge should not feel obliged to be a legal windbag repeating himself at length just for the sake of it. Reasons for a decision do not have to be long-winded or repetitive in order to pass muster as sufficient and satisfactory in value".

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.