UK: The Ongoing Duty of Good Faith – Time To Bring the Curtain Down?

Last Updated: 16 November 2001

K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v. Lloyd’s Underwriters (CA(Eng), transcript 31st July 2001)

The English Courts have long grappled with the concept of the existence and extent of a post-contractual duty of good faith in insurance contracts. The existence of the duty prior to the formation of the contract, both to disclose all matters material both to the hypothetical prudent underwriter and to the decision of the actual underwriter to accept the risk and not to make material misrepresentations is, of course, well established (see, for example, Pan-Atlantic v. Pine Top Insurance [1995] 1 A.C. 501), but the position generally after the contract is made has been less than clear. The problem for the courts has been that, because the duty of good faith, if it exists after the contract is made, is an extra-contractual duty and not an implied term (see Banque Keyser Ullman SA v. Skandia (UK) Insurance Co. Ltd. [1991] 2 A.C. 249), the only remedy open for breach of such duty is to avoid the policy, an extremely draconian measure, especially when the policy has been on foot for some time.

Instances where the courts have required what might be described as "good faith" on the part of parties to a contract of insurance in their actions after the contract is made include:

  • Not to make fraudulent claims (see, for example, Goulstone v. Royal Insurance Co. (1858) 1 F&F, 276; Britton v. Royal Insurance Co. (1866) 4 F&F, 905). This applies not just to wholly fraudulent acts, such as the insured person burning down the insured building in order to make the claim, but also fraudulent acts which taint an otherwise valid claim, such as the insured pretending that the contents of a building destroyed by an accidental fire were extremely valuable when in fact the building was empty. However, the law also recognises the commercial reality of making a claim, that an insurer, through his loss adjuster, will seek to adjust a claim downwards, and so the insured, whilst not permitted wilfully to exaggerate his claim, can legitimately put in a claim for a figure that he knows he is unlikely to obtain, as an initial bargaining position (see Orakpo v. Barclays Insurance Services [1995] LRLR 443).
  • To make full disclosure on a variation of the risk. However, the right of avoidance relates only to the variation and not to the original risk (see Iron Trades Mutual v. Cie de Seguros [1991] 1 LRLR 213). As the parties are altering the contractual terms, it would follow that full disclosure should be made only in relation to the alteration.
  • To make full disclosure on renewal. As a new contract is being negotiated, this can more properly be seen as an example of the pre-contractual duty of good faith.
  • When the insurer has the right to information, whether by an express or implied term of the policy, it has been said that there may a duty of good faith in the giving of the information (see, for example, Phoenix General Insurance Co. v. Halvanon Insurance Co. Ltd. [1985] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 559 and Alfred McAlpine Plc v. BAI (Run-Off) Ltd. [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 437). However, such cases do not support the right of avoidance on the part of the insurers if the duty is breached, in absence of prejudice to the insurers in connection with their ultimate liability for the claim.

This whole issue was considered at length by the House of Lords in Manifest Shipping Co. Ltd, v. Uni-Polaris Insurance Co. (The ‘Star Sea’) [2001] 2 W.L.R. 170, in the context of a marine hull and machinery policy where the allegation made by the insurer was one of culpable non-disclosure on the part of the insured during the course of the claim, specifically during the course of litigation over the claim between the parties. The House of Lords held that any ongoing duty of good faith ended when the litigation commenced, and therefore the insured was entitled to conduct the litigation by the rules of the court (and claim privilege over certain reports), rather than being forced to continue to provide the insurer with full information (including therefore the reports) under the terms of the policy. (The editors of MacGillivray on Insurance Law submit that any such duty should determine once the claim has been rejected.)

The ‘Star Sea’ did not, however, provide conclusive assistance as to the extent to which the duty of good faith applied generally after the conclusion of the contract. In KS/Merc-Scandia, the Court of Appeal of England & Wales undertook a further review of the position in the light of a contract of liability which insured ship repairers in Trinidad. As is common in liability policies, the policy under review required the insured to give prompt notice to the insurers of circumstances which may give rise to a claim and to keep the insurers fully advised thereafter, and gave insurers the right to take conduct of the defence of claims. The policy also included a provision in the following terms:

"If the insured shall make any claim knowing the same to be false and fraudulent, as regards amount or otherwise, the policy shall become void and all claims hereunder shall be forfeited."

The facts upon which the insurers based their defence to liability in relation to the claim arose during the course of litigation between the insured and the claimant ship owners. The Managing Director and Chairman of the insured forged a letter dealing with the authority of officers of the insured to discuss the claim, in the context of an application contesting the jurisdiction of the English courts. The forgery was discovered almost immediately, but insurers instructed separate solicitors to protect their interests and withdrew their consent to legal costs being incurred in the defence of the claim. Soon thereafter, insurers purported to avoid the policy. The claimant ship owners succeeded against the insured at trial and, having wound up the insured, claimed from the insurers under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930, which is mirrored in Hong Kong by an Ordinance of the same name. At trial, the claimant shipowners succeeded.

Before the Court of Appeal, the insurers argued that:

  • the duty of good faith applied in general terms throughout the contract, breach of which and, certainly, any fraudulent conduct, entitled insurers to avoid; there was never an occasion on which the insured could act in bad faith without risking avoidance.
  • if the duty only applied in some circumstances (and not generally) after the contract was made, then it applied on this occasion, since the giving of information to insurers must be such an occasion.
  • the breach of the obligation to keep the insurers advised was so serious that they were justified in refusing to pay the claim (this was not, of course, a defence of breach of duty of good faith, but was one based on a breach of the express terms of the policy; i.e. a contractual defence).

The contractual defence

Giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, Longmore LJ decided to deal first with the contractual defence. The express term relating to fraudulent claims (set out above) could not be relied upon by insurers, because no claim arose under the policy until such time as the liability of the insured to the claimant ship owners had been established, and the events relied upon occurred before that date (relying on Post Office v. Norwich Union [1967] 2 Q.B. 363 and Bradley v. Eagle Star [1989] A.C. 957). Instead, insurers relied on a (fraudulent) breach of the express obligation to keep them fully advised.

Such clause, however, could be breached by the insured innocently, negligently and recklessly, as well as fraudulently. The effect of the breach depended on whether the clause constituted a warranty (the breach of which, however trivial, could allow the insurers to repudiate the contract), a condition (the breach of which could only give rise to a claim in damages) or an innominate term (the effect of a breach of which depended on nature and gravity of the breach itself). Insurers, relying on Alfred McAlpine Plc v. BAI (Run-Off) Ltd. [2000] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 437 (CA (Eng)), argued that there was a fourth category of clause in insurance cases, namely a term the breach of which was so serious as would entitle underwriters to reject the claim without repudiating the contract as a whole. The Court of Appeal rejected this defence on the basis that there was no serious consequence to the insurers from the insured’s fraudulent conduct. Thus, the clause was not a warranty, nor was it a condition, but there was no finding as to what precisely the clause was.

The good faith defence

Insurers submitted that, in the light of the House of Lords decision in The ‘Star Sea’, the only application of the duty of good faith post contract was to cases of dishonesty, but that in such cases the duty was breached whatever the act of dishonesty and its consequences. The claimant ship owners, standing in the shoes of the insured, argued that the duty should only apply to instances analogous to the pre-contractual situation (i.e. where there was a subsequent change to the contract) and to fraudulent claims.

Longmore LJ held that, if there were a duty of good faith subsisting post contract, the right to avoid for breach must be subject to at least the same requirements as for breach pre-contract (i.e. materiality to the prudent underwriter and inducement to the actual underwriter), and therefore that the act of the insured which is relied on by the insurer must be causally relevant to the insurer’s ultimate liability or, at least, to some defence of the insurer, before the insurer is entitled to avoid the policy. Thus, in this case, the insurers must have been seriously prejudiced by the fraud before the policy could be avoided.

He also held, however, that there were two difficulties with the submissions made on the part of the claimant ship owners. The first was that the situations analogous to the pre-contractual position were rather examples of it and the position in relation to fraudulent claims was unclear as to whether it derived from a breach of a post contractual duty of good faith and therefore allowed avoidance, or from some other source which lead to the "forfeiture of the benefit of the policy". The second difficulty was to fit within the submission the cases where lack of good faith post contract only sounded in damages or other common law contractual remedies.

Longmore LJ held that it was not open to the Court of Appeal to decide that the duty had no application post contract, or that it only applied in the two instances put forward by the claimant ship owners. Longmore LJ held instead that it was only appropriate to invoke the remedy of avoidance in a post-contractual context in situations analogous to the situations where the insurer has the right to terminate for breach, i.e. in situations where the fraud was material in that it would have an effect on the insurer’s ultimate liability (as in Royal Boskalis Westminster N.V. v. Mountain [1997] LRLR 523) and the gravity of the fraud or its consequences were such as to allow the insurers to terminate the contract (by accepting repudiation). Thus, the right to avoid the contract was aligned with the right to terminate it.

Applying this analysis to the facts, obviously, since he had decided there was no right to terminate, Longmore LJ held that there was no right to avoid, and thus upheld the judgment at first instance for the claimant ship owners.


With the greatest respect to the learned Lord Justice, I believe that this analysis is flawed. I believe that the correct analysis is that there is no post-contractual duty of good faith except in situations where the contract is being altered, whether by extension, amendment, addition of insured parties etc., which are better seen as examples of the operation of the pre-contractual duty.

As to the duty not to make fraudulent claims, this "duty" can be explained on the grounds of public policy, that a fraudster should not benefit from his own fraud. As such, there is no need for a post-contractual duty of good faith to operate.

As to the duty to provide information to the insurer in relation to claims, whether this is an express or implied term of the contract, it is perhaps a better view that the insurer has only common law remedies for breach of these express or implied terms (as is apparent from the cases), and the cases which refer to ‘good faith’ in this respect set out the scope of the contractual obligations to provide information to which they give rise (i.e. not to make material non-disclosure or misrepresentation), rather than establish that such obligations are part of a continuing duty of good faith, with all the ramifications for the insured which arise if the duty actually exists and is breached.

The flaw in the reasoning, I believe, is evident from the following passage from Longmore LJ’s judgment:

"It is often observed that the right of avoidance is disproportionate… If the right to avoid in a post-contract context is exercisable only when the right to terminate for breach has arisen, the disproportionate effect of the remedy will be considerably less and the extra advantages given to insurers when they exercise a right of avoidance (e.g. non-liability for earlier claims) will be less offensive than they otherwise would be."

Again, with respect, in a situation where there is no right to avoid in relation to a breach of a pre-contractual duty of good faith, the ability to avoid for breach of a post-contractual duty (rather than to terminate the policy going forward) will often be wholly disproportionate, especially in the context of contracts which run for a long period and under which it is accepted from the outset that there will be a number of claims even on a best case scenario. The better approach, I believe, is to do away finally with the concept of the duty post contract and allow insurers to rely on the perfectly adequate protection afforded by the express and implied terms of the contract, the common law public policy considerations in relation to fraudulent conduct, and the obligations of good faith which arise on amendment and renewal.

Gareth Thomas, Partner

(These views are personal to the author, who is a co-author of Halsbury’s Laws of Hong Kong – Vol. 15(1): Insurance)



"© Herbert Smith 2002

The content of this article does not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

For more information on this or other Herbert Smith publications, please email us."

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.

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.