UK: Insurance And Reinsurance - Weekly Update - 11 December 2012

Last Updated: 19 December 2012
Article by Nigel Brook

Mueller Europe v Central Roofing

Skeleton arguments and electronic disclosure order/access to document in possession of a party's insurers

Various issues were considered by Coulson J in this case:

(1) Time to lodge skeleton arguments and counsel's notes in the TCC. The TCC Guide provides that skeleton arguments and notes must be lodged by counsel by 1pm the day before the hearing (for most post-CMC applications) and by 4pm one clear day before the hearing of an application which is going to last more than half a day or for a Pre-Trial Review ("PTR"). Those deadlines were not met in this case and he said that "the continued failure to meet these deadlines will, in the future, be met with a tougher response than hitherto, and is more likely to lead to adjourned hearings and wasted costs orders"

(2) Parties should not "overload" the PTR - here, seven separate interlocutory disputes were raised by the parties and so the parties ought to have addressed these issues much earlier than the PTR

(3) Experts' joint statement. Here, one expert failed to engage in the process of meeting with the other side's expert and producing a joint statement (pursuant to CPR r35.12(3)). Coulson J said that "It is becoming too common for experts who are ordered to meet and produce a joint statement first, either to pay lip-service to that arrangement and to produce a joint statement which is of no help at all (as here), or to ignore the requirement for a joint statement and push on with their own reports regardless ...Self-evidently, that is not the right approach". As a result, a limited form of "unless" order was justified here

(4) Electronic disclosure. Although the defendant had tried to comply with an order to carry out a search for electronic documents, it was clear that he did not have the expertise to do so. Coulson J held that he had jurisdiction to order the search to be carried out by a suitably qualified IT consultant: "As a matter of principle, I conclude that, if an order to search for electronic documents can only be complied with if it is undertaken by somebody with expertise in that field, then the court has the jurisdiction to order that the search should be carried out by such a person; otherwise, the court will be making an order with which the party against whom it is made will never be able to comply"

(5) Assessor's notes. The defendant's insurers had instructed an assessor to investigate and his report was disclosed. The claimant sought disclosure of the assessor's notes (on which the report was based). Coulson J held that, pursuant to CPR r31.8, it did not matter that the notes were in the possession of the defendant's insurers and not the defendant itself. What matters is that the document is "in the control" of the defendant and "Documents in the possession of the defendant's insurers are within their control; they could call for their inspection at any time". An order for specific disclosure was therefore made and insurers were ordered to make a proper search for the notes. Any question of privilege could only be asserted once the document had been found and listed

COMMENT: Regarding the last point above, it is not clear why documents in an insurer's possession should be said to be within the "control" on an insured. An insurer would not normally be viewed as the servant or agent of the insured and an insured would not have an enforceable legal right of access to such documents. This is therefore a surprising decision and there does not appear to be any prior caselaw to support it.

Light On Line & Anor v Zumtobel Lighting

Whether ATE premium was recoverable

From next April, the premium for an After the Event insurance policy will cease to be recoverable from the losing party where the policy is entered into after 1 April 2013. However, this case involved an ATE insurance policy taken out before that date and the issue was whether the premium was recoverable or whether the claimants had breached the requirement in the rules to "provide information about the insurance policy". The claimants had initially failed to supply any information and some months later served a copy of the insurance certificate, with the figures for the premium payable at different stages redacted, leaving just the total amount of premium payable.

On appeal, Slade J held that there was a distinction between: (a) the mandatory requirement to show the amount of the premium paid or payable; and (b) evidence (which may include amounts payable if the proceedings are concluded at earlier stages) which allows a paying party to assess the reasonableness of the premium being claimed. If necessary, the defendant could have made an application for disclosure of the unredacted certificate of insurance. The judge concluded that the insurance certificate had complied with the CPR. Although the certificate had also been served late, the judge granted relief from sanctions, taking into account the prejudice suffered by the defendant and the prejudice which the claimants would have suffered if no relief had been granted.

Virgin Atlantic v Zodiac

Whether court should be told about Part 36 offer covering two actions

This case was unusual in that the claimant made a Part 36 offer covering both this case (in which judgment has now been given) and another case involving the same parties. The issue was whether the court should be shown that offer now or whether costs should only be dealt with following the outcome of the other proceedings. CPR r36.13(2) provides that a judge must not be told that a Part 36 offer has been made "until the case has been decided". Although there has been recent caselaw regarding Part 36 offers and split trials (see, for example, Ted Baker v AXA (Weekly Update 24/12)), the issue of a Part 36 offer covering two cases does not appear to have come before the courts before. In particular, it is unclear whether the "case" should be given a wide interpretation where there are related actions or disputes involving the parties. However, Floyd J held that he did not have to decide that issue here because both parties had agreed that he could be told about the existence of the offer.

He went on to say that "what remains to prevent the court being told about the offer is that it is still to be treated as "without prejudice save as to costs" by virtue of CPR r36.13(1)". He held that "the true meaning of the "without prejudice save as to costs" designation is that the contents of the offer should not be referred to until the offeror consents to it being referred to on the question of costs". It does not automatically cease to attract privilege as soon as any question of costs is reached. However, because the claimant had referred to one of the terms of the offer (namely, that it extended to another action as well), it cannot pick and choose the terms which it brings to the court's attention. In other words, the claimant had waived privilege. Accordingly, the court could deal with the issue of costs now.

Courts have a discretion to award interest on costs. In this case, a claim was made for 13% because the party claiming that amount financed its business through loans with heavy rates of interest. The judge said that this did not entitle that party to a higher than normal rate of interest and he awarded 1% over the clearing bank base rate up to the date of judgment.

Harries v Stevenson

Whether claimant entitled to a different discount rate - of possible interest to professional negligence/personal injury insurers

A personal injury claimant can be compensated by either a lump sum or a Periodical Payment Order ("PPO"). Where a lump sum is awarded, a discount rate is applied to prevent the claimant from being over-compensated for the accelerated payment of future losses. That discount rate was set at 2.5% by the Lord Chancellor in 2001 and has remained at that level ever since (although it is currently under review). Section 1(2) of the Damages Act 1996 allows the court to apply a different discount rate if that is "more appropriate" in a particular case. In this case, the claimant argued that a lower discount rate should be applied because the defendant (or his insurers) were unable or unwilling to provide a reasonably secure PPO. Having reviewed the relevant caselaw, Morgan J rejected the claimant's argument.

He held that the court must still find special features to justify a different discount rate - the fact that a court can now make a PPO even without the consent of one or both parties was not sufficient to change the court's approach. A change in "economic forces" was also not sufficient: "it is not appropriate for a court in an individual case to consider whether to adopt a different rate, just because it is said that economic forces today differ from those in 2001. If that is thought to be unfair to claimants, the justification is that it is desirable as a matter of policy for the amount of the discount rate to be prescribed and fixed".

Cleightonhills v Bembridge Marine Ltd

Duty of contractors where sub-contractor hired/duty to warn - of possible interest to professional indemnity insurers

Two issues considered by Akenhead J in this case were as follows:

(1) It was argued that the case of Clay v AJ Crump [1963] is authority for the position that it is no defence to a charge of negligence that a party has relied on others. Akenhead J said that that was "putting the matter far too high". A professional's duty of care can be discharged (at least to a significant extent) by retaining apparently competent parties to carry out some of his/her contractual duties. There may be a duty to supervise any sub-contractors but the extent of that duty will differ depending on the case. The extent and scope of the duty to check may be very limited where eg qualified architects or engineers are retained

(2) There was also debate about the duty to warn. Prior caselaw has considered the duty where there has been actual knowledge of a danger. Akenhead J said that there may be circumstances which would justify no warning being given even where there is actual knowledge. He added that it is "at least possible" that someone charged (contractually) with an obligation to check if works are safe may have a tortious duty of care to warn about dangers "of which he or she should have been aware"

Almeida v Fidelidade- Mundial SA

ECJ judgement on compulsory motor insurance and national laws limiting compensation

The claimant was a passenger in an insured car which was involved in a collision with another car (which was not insured). The local (Portuguese) court held that the claimant was not entitled to damages because it found that he was injured because he had failed to wear a seatbelt (in breach of Portuguese law). The claimant appealed to the Court of Justice of the EU (Grand Chamber) and it has now confirmed that national laws can limit or exclude the liability of insured persons where a car accident gives rise to a personal injury which is not the fault of either driver. This conclusion was not a breach of the relevant Motor Directives which require compensation by means of compulsory insurance against the civil liability of a driver. The obligation to take out insurance covering liability for damage caused to third parties (which is guaranteed by EU legislation) is separate from the extent of the compensation afforded to the third parties on the basis of the civil liability of the insured person (which is governed by national law).

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