UK: Insurance And Reinsurance - 15 May 2012

Last Updated: 22 May 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the sixteenth edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2012.

These updates are aimed at keeping you up to speed and informed of the latest developments in caselaw relevant to your practice.


  • PHI Group v Robert West Consulting
    The Court of Appeal considers whether an offer was a Part 36 offer and whether an earlier offer had been withdrawn.
  • Bitumex (HK) v IRPC
    A case on service out of the jurisdiction and a retrospective order for service in an arbitration claim.
  • Alfa Laval v Separator Spares
    Court considers Article 6.1 of EC Regulation 44/2001 (suing a defendant where a co-defendant is domiciled) and limitation issues.
  • Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex
    A cross-undertaking in damages and an illegality defence - the Court of Appeal examines ex turpi causa.
  • Shawe-Lincoln v Neelakandan
    A case on the inference to be drawn where a claimant cannot prove causation because of the defendant's negligence.
  • CVB v MGN Ltd
    Applying for an order from the court to leave out the claimant's name on the claim form-whether there is a need to give notice.
  • Other News
    The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 received royal assent on 1 May 2012. It will not be fully in force until April 2013.

PHI Group v Robert West Consulting

Court of Appeal considers whether offer was a Part 36 offer and whether earlier offer had been withdrawn

The claimant made an offer purporting to be a Part 36 offer which the defendant failed to better at trial. The judge held that the offer was not a Part 36 offer and that it should not have the costs consequences of a Part 36 offer because it had, in any event, been withdrawn. The Court of Appeal has now held as follows:

(1) The judge was correct to find that this was not a valid Part 36 offer, even though it was headed as such and made repeated references to Part 36. The claimant had failed to comply with CPR r36.2(2)(c) which provides that a Part 36 offer must "specify a period of not less than 21 days within which the defendant will be liable for the claimant's costs... if the offer is accepted".

Although there has been prior caselaw which has held that there is no requirement to state expressly that the period specified in the letter is the period "within which the defendant will be liable for the claimant's costs", it is a requirement that a period of at least 21 days be specified. If an offer were to refer to 21 days as "the relevant period" that would probably suffice too. However, in this case, there was no period specified at all.

The Court of Appeal added that the fact that the offer had referred to CPR r36.14(2) (which relates to defendants' offers) rather than CPR r36.14(3) (which relates to claimants' offers) would not in itself have been sufficiently serious to prevent this being a valid Part 36 offer.

(2) There is prior caselaw to the effect that an offer which is clearly intended to be a Part 36 offer, but which fails to be a valid Part 36 offer because of a technical error, should be given substantially the same effect as a Part 36 offer by the court exercising its general discretion as to costs under CPR r44.3 (see Huntley v Simmonds (Weekly Update 10/09)). As mentioned above, at first instance the judge declined to apply this principle because he held that the offer had been withdrawn when the claimant made a further offer to the defendant. The Court of Appeal found that the judge had erred in this respect.

The offer took effect as a contractual offer which, on normal principles, could be withdrawn at any time before acceptance, and could be withdrawn without any particular formality having to be observed. However, just because the later offer was not consistent with the earlier offer, that did not necessarily mean that the earlier offer had been withdrawn. There is no reason in principle why a party can't made different offers successively, leaving it open to the other side to choose which (if either) to accept.

Bitumex (HK) v IRPC

Service out of the jurisdiction and retrospective order for service in an arbitration claim

The claimant gave notice of arbitration but the defendant (a Thai company) refused to agree the appointment of an arbitrator so the claimant applied to court for appointment of an arbitrator. The claimant was given permission to serve out. There is no bilateral agreement for service between the UK and Thailand. The claimant sought to serve by retaining Thai lawyers to hand deliver the arbitration claim form at the registered office of the defendant. The defendant contends that that was not valid service under Thai law because physical service must be carried out by an officer of the Thai court. Mackie HHJ declined to decide whether valid service had taken place under Thai law but agreed to assume that it had not.

He then considered the claimant's application under CPR r6.15 for an order that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method amounted to good service (the claimant having also sent the arbitration claim form by registered mail to the defendant's registered office). The judge held as follows:

  1. Retrospective service is an exceptional measure and it is not enough that service would be quicker using the alternative method.
  2. As there is no bilateral agreement between the UK and Thailand, no direct obligations between the two countries would be overlooked if retrospective service was allowed in this case.
  3. A further factor was that the Foreign Process Section had advised that service through judicial authorities in Thailand (under CPR r6.42) would take around 12 months.
  4. Of crucial importance in this case, though, was the fact that this was an arbitration case. This was not a case where the English court was presuming to try the underlying dispute itself - it was merely assisting an international arbitration in London which the defendant was deliberately trying to delay unnecessarily.That made this case "exceptional" and justified an order for retrospective service.

Alfa Laval v Separator Spares

Court considers Article 6.1 (suing a defendant where a co-defendant is domiciled) and limitation issues

The basic rule under EC Regulation 44/2001 is that a defendant should be sued in the country where he is domiciled (absent an express jurisdiction clause or a special rule). Article 6.1 of the Regulation provides that the defendant may also be sued "where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and to determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings." Briggs J made the following observations in relation to this article:

  1. (Applying the recent ECJ decision in Painer v Standard Verlags GmbH), there is no need for the case against the defendant and the other defendants to have the same legal basis. All that is required is a sufficiently close factual connection between the claims to give rise to a sufficient risk of irreconcilable judgments.
  2. The court must assess the degree of connection and then apply a value judgment as to the expediency of hearing both actions together (if possible). An argument that the defendant sued in England was little more than a "nominal" defendant (although it was not suggested that he had been sued merely as a vehicle for ousting Polish jurisdiction against certain other Polish defendants) was not said to be significant: "The language of Article 6.1 suggests that it is primarily to the closeness of the connection that the court looks when carrying out its value judgment. Questions such as whether a particular defendant will mount an active defence or whether the claim may be or has been allowed for a time to become dormant against a particular defendant do not seem to me to go to the heart of the analysis".
  3. The Limitation Act provides that, where a new claim is added to an ongoing action, that new claim is deemed to have been commenced on the same date as the ongoing action. In this case, that was prejudicial to the Polish defendants because they had an arguable case under Polish law that the claim against them was now time-barred. In Welsh Development Agency v Redpath [1994], it was held that in such a situation, permission to introduce the new claim should be refused and the claimant should bring the claim by separate proceedings (thus preserving the defendant's right to raise a limitation defence). Although there should be no risk of irreconcilable judgments in a domestic context (as a result of good case management), Briggs J noted that an application of the Welsh rule in an international context could give rise to difficulties because Article 6.1 could arguably require all the defendants to be defendants in the same proceedings. However, the Court of Appeal in Masri v The Consolidated Contractors [2005] has held that Article 6.1 should not be construed in such a limited manner.

The claimant had suggested a different approach to this issue: to add the Polish defendants to the ongoing action but to require the claimant to undertake not to pursue that claim if it appeared, at trial, that it would have been statute-barred if commenced now. Although "sorely tempted" to approve that solution, in the end, the judge was not persuaded to do so.

Les Laboratoires Servier v Apotex

A cross-undertaking in damages and an illegality defence - the Court of Appeal examines ex turpi causa

The maxim ex turpi causa provides that no action can arise from an illegal or immoral act. In this case, the claimant had obtained an injunction against the defendant. That injunction was subsequently discharged and the defendant sought to claim on the cross-undertaking for damages provided by the claimant. The claimant sought to rely on the ex turpi causa rule, arguing that the injunction had prevented the defendant from manufacturing goods which would have breached a patent which was enforceable in Canada. At first instance, the judge held that the defendant's claim was barred and the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal allowed that appeal. It held as follows:

  1. There is no principle that, where a claimant obtains an injunction but subsequently fails in the action, it cannot rely on facts which it knew at the time of the injunction to defend a claim on the cross-undertaking.
  2. The illegality principle should not be applied too inflexibly. Certain policy considerations underlie the principle and one or more of these must apply in a case in order to justify the application of the principle (although just because they do apply it does not automatically follow that a party can rely on the principle). The policy considerations are as follows: (a) consistency; (b) the claimant should not profit from his own wrong; (c) deterrence; (d) maintaining the integrity of the legal system; and (e) furthering the purpose of the rule which the illegal conduct has infringed.
  3. It makes no difference if the act is illegal under foreign law. Nor is the illegality defence aimed at achieving a just result between the parties - the rule cannot "be founded on a discretionary power to give effect to the public conscience". The defence may not arise where the unlawful act is "merely trivial" or the result of an inadvertent breach of a law or regulation.
  4. It is necessary to consider whether the unlawful conduct caused the damage or was merely the occasion for it. The unlawful act in this case was sufficiently causative of the defendant's claim to engage, in principle, the illegality defence. However, weighing up the facts in this case, the Court of Appeal concluded that the defence did not apply. For example, the unchallenged evidence was that the defendant had acted honestly.

Shawe-Lincoln v Neelakandan

Inference to be drawn where claimant cannot prove causation because of defendant's negligence

In the Court of Appeal case of Keefe v Isle of Man the dismissal of the claim based on the claimant's failure to prove negligence was reversed on the basis that the difficulty in obtaining proof had been caused by the defendant's breach of duty.

In this case, the defendant admitted a negligent breach of duty as a result of failing to admit the claimant into hospital. The defendant argued that the principle in Keefe should apply to his case because the defendant had deprived him of the medical records which he would have obtained had he been admitted. Lloyd Jones J pointed out that Keefe is not concerned with a reversal of the burden of proof - it is, instead, concerned with the weight which is to be attached to evidence and the circumstances in which the court may draw inferences.

The benevolent principle established in Keefe did apply to cases concerning causation as opposed to just negligence cases. However, even adopting a benevolent approach here, the judge rejected the claimant's argument on this point because (inter alia) the defendant had been under no duty to take the measurements which were lacking and because other evidence produced in the case supported the defendant's case.


Applying for an order from the court to leave out claimant's name on claim form - whether need to give notice EWHC/QB/2012/1148.html&query=title+(+cvb+and+mgn+) &method=boolean

PD 16 provides that the claim form must include the full name of each party. However, the intending claimant can apply to court for a dispensation from that requirement. One of the issues in this case was whether the intending claimant had to give notice of that application. Tugendhat J held that he does not.

The order from the court is not an injunction (and if the identity of the claimant is subsequently disclosed by the defendant or anyone else, they will not be committing a contempt of court - although if the disclosure amounts to eg the tort of misuse of information, they will not be able to rely by way of defence on the fact that the identity of the claimant is a matter of public record). As a result, the order is not made "against" the defendant or anyone else and so there is no requirement under CPR r23 or the Human Rights Act to given notice to an intended defendant or anyone else. However, any person affected by the order can apply to have it discharged.

Other News

The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 received royal assent on 1 May 2012. It is expected to be fully in force by April 2013 (although there have been suggestions that the Act may be implemented in stages prior to that date). Key changes include: (1) in relation to Conditional Fee Arrangements, success fees and ATE insurance premiums will no longer be recoverable (and in personal injury cases will be subject to a maximum percentage of damages); (2) solicitors will be able to enter into Damages-based Agreements (or contingency fees), payable if the client wins and calculated by reference to the amount recovered by the client; (3) a ban on referral fees by a "regulated person" (as defined in the Act); and (4), in relation to Part 36 offers, the Act provides for rules of court to be adopted to allow for the payment of "an additional amount" if a defendant fails to better a claimant's offer - that additional amount is likely to be 10% of the damages awarded to the claimant. A copy of the Act can be found below: legalaidsentencingandpunishmentofoffenders.html

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.