UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 16th October 2012

Last Updated: 16 October 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the thirty-sixth 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.

This week's caselaw

Hellard v Irwin Mitchell
A Clyde & Co case on implied waiver of legal advice privilege and papers in a barrister's possession.

Simmons v Castle
An ABI application to the Court of Appeal regarding the 10% increase in general damages post-April 2013.

Beasley v Alexander
A case on Part 36 offers and split trials.

Sandhu v Kaur
A decision on whether there had been a breach of an undertaking to disclose documents.

Tinkler & Anor v Elliott
The Court of Appeal decides whether a litigant in person had acted promptly when applying to set aside an order.

Ward v Allies and Morrison Architects
A case on damages and the loss of future earnings where the claimant was starting out on a career.

Hellard v Irwin Mitchell

Implied waiver of legal advice privilege/papers in barrister's possession

Clyde & Co for defendant

The defendant is a firm of solicitors being sued for professional negligence. It sought to argue that, by bringing the proceedings, the claimants had impliedly waived privilege attaching to papers in counsel's possession (and to which neither the clients nor the solicitors were necessarily privy). The claimants sought to rely on the case of Paragon Finance v Freshfields [1999], in which the Court of Appeal held that although there had been an implied waiver of legal advice privilege in relation to all communications between the parties once the client had commenced proceedings against his former solicitors, that waiver did not extend to communications between the client and his new solicitors who (like counsel in this case) were not being sued. HHJ Purle QC rejected that argument.

He held that Paragon did not apply here because counsel had been acting jointly with, or as agents of, the solicitors (there was no new and separate retainer). Once a client sues his solicitors, he impliedly waives privilege attaching to communications between the solicitors and the client, as well as any evidence as to those communications, including the evidence of anyone who was privy to the giving of the advice in question. As the judge put it: "in my judgment, the rule or presumption against cherry-picking applies not just to what is in the solicitors' file and mind, but to what is in anyone else's file and mind who was party or privy to the communication in question". Subject to the limitation of relevance, therefore, the waiver extends (as a matter of fairness) to all of counsel's papers, including his own working papers and notes which were never sent to anyone else.

Simmons v Castle

ABI application to Court of Appeal regarding 10% increase in tort (and contractual) damages post-April 2013

Weekly Update 28/12 reported the Court of Appeal's confirmation in this case that, with effect from 1 April 2013, general damages in tort actions would increase by 10%. This was done because the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 ("LASPO"), which comes into effect on 1 April, envisaged that the judiciary would give effect to this 10% increase in damages. The Association of British Insurers brought an application inviting the Court of Appeal to reconsider its decision. The Court of Appeal has now decided as follows:

1) The 10% increase applies to all successful claimants, and not just those who have entered into a Conditional Fee Agreement ("CFA"). The increase will apply where judgment is given after 1 April 2013.

(2) However, where the claimant has entered into a CFA (and falls within section 44(6) of LASPO), the 10% increase will only apply where the claimant's funding arrangements for his legal costs are agreed after 1 April 2013.

Although the Court of Appeal recognised that this conclusion results in an inconsistency between CFA claimants and non-CFA claimants, it felt that this "temporary, transitional provision" was the best solution in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal also held that it would be inconsistent and unfair to limit the 10% increase to claims in tort: "We can see no good reason why the 10% increase should be limited so as to exclude any type of claim". Thus the 10% increase will apply to the following types of general damages no matter what the cause of action is (eg it will apply to contractual claims such as disappointing holiday claims): (a) pain and suffering and loss of amenity; (b) physical inconvenience and discomfort; (c) social discredit; and (d) mental distress. The nature of these heads of damages will mean that the 10% uplift will usually only apply to claims made by individuals and will relate to only specific types of claim. In other words, there is no general 10% uplift on all damages.

Beasley v Alexander

Part 36 offers and split trials EWHC/QB/2012/2715.html&query=beasley+and+alexander& method=boolean

After judgment on liability was handed down in this case (but before the issue of damages was tried), the judge was required to decide whether he could make an order as to costs at this stage. The defendant argued that the effect of CPR r36.13(2) was to prevent the court making any order as to costs until the whole case had been decided. CPR r36.13(2) provides that "The fact that a Part 36 offer has been made must not be communicated to the trial judge ... until the case has been decided".

In AB v CD & Ors (see Weekly Update 12/11), Henderson J said that it might be appropriate, in certain circumstances, for the court to be told about a Part 36 offer at the end of the first part of a split trial. However, Eder J in Ted Baker v AXA & Ors (see Weekly Update 24/12) thought that Henderson J's suggestion would stretch the wording of CPR r36.13 beyond its proper limit.

In this case, Jack J held that the words in CPR r36.13(2) had a "clear meaning": "the case" meant the whole case and could not be construed as referring to part of a case. Although he reached that conclusion "with regret" (because he felt there could be good policy reasons for his dealing with the costs of liability at this stage, provided he did not know what offer had been made), because of the CPR, he could not be told the position as to Part 36 offers and so could not deal with costs at this stage.

COMMENT: This case provides useful clarity on the position regarding Part 36 offers and split trials. Although both Henderson J and Eder J have discussed the issue before, they were not required to decide it in their cases and so their views were only obiter. It might be recalled, though, that Eder J thought there was an urgent need for CPR r36.13 to be reviewed and possibly reformulated.

Sandhu v Kaur

Whether there had been a breach of an undertaking to disclose documents EWHC/Ch/2012/2679.html&query=title+(+sandhu+and+kaur +)&method=boolean

One of the issues in this case was whether the respondent had breached an undertaking, recorded in a disclosure order, under which she agreed to "(i) use reasonable endeavours to procure from [X] and disclose copies of [certain documents]...and (ii) make available for inspection the originals of the documents so disclosed...." Whilst Newey J saw an attraction in the respondent's argument that she was only required to use reasonable endeavours to make documents available for inspection, it could not be reconciled with the unambiguous wording of the undertaking. She was subject to an absolute requirement to make the documents available: "A possible explanation for the unqualified nature of the undertaking is that [the respondent] knew that she was in a position to ensure that the documents were produced".

In any event, she had not used reasonable endeavours either. It had been within her power to ensure production of the documents, even though they were held by company X. She was a director of this company and two of the other three directors were members of her family. Furthermore, she looked after the company's affairs as its managing director and she held 84% of the issued share capital (and therefore could have removed any director who was not prepared to allow the documents to be inspected).

Tinkler & Anor v Elliott

Whether litigant in person acted promptly when applying to set aside an order

The claimant in an action failed to attend trial for medical reasons. A civil restraint order was made against him. However, his application to set aside that order was granted, even though a period of 18 months had elapsed since he was given notice of the order. The defendant appealed that decision.

The Court of Appeal has now allowed that appeal. CPR r39.3(5) sets out the conditions which a litigant must satisfy in order to ask the court to set aside an order made in his/ her absence. One of those conditions is that the litigant has "acted promptly". The Court of Appeal confirmed that promptness is a mandatory requirement, pursuant to which the applicant must act "with all reasonable celerity in the circumstances". Only if that requirement is met does the court have any discretion. The Court of Appeal held that the judge had not been entitled to set aside the order on the material placed before her. It could not be said that the claimant had been incapable of functioning as a litigant in person throughout the 18 month period. Kay LJ added that "I accept that there may be facts and circumstances in relation to a litigant in person which may go to an assessment of promptness but, in my judgment, they will only operate close to the margins". The judge had gone too far in making allowances for a litigant in person.

Ward v Allies and Morrison Architects

Damages and loss of future earnings where claimant starting out on career

The claimant, a graduate, was injured whilst carrying out a short term work experience placement at the offices of the defendant. Of issue in this case was how the judge should have calculated damages for her loss of future earnings. It was common ground that the multiplicand/multiplier methodology and the Tables and guidance in the current edition of Ogden should normally be applied when making an award of damages for future loss of earnings, unless the judge really has no alternative. At first instance, the judge felt that he was "driven" to use the "broad brush" approach adopted in the case of Blamire v South Cumbria Health Authority [1993] because there had been too many imponderables in this case.

The Court of Appeal agreed with that approach. It held that the judge had been entitled to conclude that it was uncertain whether the claimant would ever have succeeded in pursuing the particular career she wished to follow, whether she would have remained in that career throughout her working life and what her level of remuneration would have been. It had also been uncertain whether her physical and psychiatric recovery would have allowed her to carry on this career (or a similar career) after the accident.

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
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions