UK: Insurance And Reinsurance - 5 February, 2013

Last Updated: 12 February 2013
Article by Nigel Brook

Nulty & Ors v Milton Keynes BC

Causation test when neither cause seems likely

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/15.html

Weekly Update 40/11 referred to the first instance decision in this case. The claimant alleged that a fire at its premises was caused by a self-employed engineer, who was insured by NIG. Edwards-Stuart J held that the insured had breached a notification condition and there was no appeal from that decision. The judge had also determined that the claimant had proved its case that the engineer had caused the fire. In so doing, he had held that neither possible cause of the fire (arcing from a disused cable or a cigarette end discarded by the engineer) seemed likely, but that the arcing possibility was no more than a remote possibility and was "very much less likely than" the cigarette explanation. He found that that was enough to discharge the claimant's burden of proof. The defendants appealed against that decision.

The Court of Appeal has found that the judge had reached the right result on the evidence but had applied the wrong legal test. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeal referred to the The Popi M [1985] in which Lord Brandon rejected the proposition that once the impossible has been eliminated, what remains must be the cause (however improbable). There, the House of Lords concluded that in some cases, the result may be that no cause is proven on the facts.

Here, the Court of Appeal held that there is no rule of law that once all other possibilities have been eliminated, the one remaining possible cause must be correct. Furthermore, "The civil "balance of probability" test means no less and no more than that the court must be satisfied on rational and objective grounds that the case for believing that the suggested means of causation occurred is stronger than the case for not so believing". The balance of probability should not be expressed in percentage terms (eg more than 50% probability). The balance of probability in favour of a finding that the cigarette had caused the fire had been satisfied in this case, with the circumstantial evidence proving compelling.

Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances

Governing law for an issue concerning expert evidence

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/53.html

The English claimant was injured in a car accident in France. He commenced proceedings in England against the other driver's French insurers (pursuant to the ECJ Odenbreit case). There was no dispute that the other driver had been negligent and judgment was entered in favour of the claimant. Damages fell to be assessed and the following issue arose: Does the issue of which expert evidence the court should order fall to be determined by reference to:

(a) the law of the forum (English law) because this is an issue of "evidence and procedure" (under Article 1.3 of the Rome II Regulation); or

(b) the applicable law (French law) because this is an issue relating to "the nature and the assessment of damage" (under Article 15 of Rome II)

It was not disputed that the Civil Procedure Rules (and, in particular, CPR r35) applied because rules as to expert evidence are plainly a matter of procedure. However, the insurers sought to argue that only one expert should be called (as is usual under French civil procedure), whereas the claimant asked for permission to call a number of experts, as is customary in English litigation of this kind. The judge concluded that he was not required to put himself in the position of a French court and decide the case as that court would have decided it (even though the English courts should try to reflect the level of damages which would have been awarded in France). He concluded that: "It is in my judgment clear that the questions of what expert evidence the court should order, and, in particular, whether or not there should be one (or more) single joint expert(s) pursuant to CPR r.35 are matters of procedure within Art 1.3".

Relfo v Varsani

Whether allegations of dishonesty justify freezing order/enforcement of worldwide freezing orders

Sales J made the following points in relation to this application for a post-judgment worldwide freezing order:

(1) Allegations of dishonesty against the defendant can, on their own, found an inference that there is a real risk of dissipation of assets. A risk had been proven here because the defendant failed to disclose all his bank accounts. It was also relevant that there had been a trial in this case and the court had found the defendant had participated in the dishonest removal of assets from the claimant

(2) Although it was appropriate to grant a worldwide freezing order here, that was on the basis that an undertaking be provided that leave from the English court would be sought to enforce the order outside England and Wales. Such an undertaking is common and the fact that this case concerned the grant of a post-judgment freezing order did not make any material difference

(3) It was common ground that the order should be time-limited and the judge held that a period of one year was appropriate (since it would take some time to enforce in different countries)

(4) In this case, it was appropriate to extend the normal order to include "assets purportedly held by the defendant as trustee or nominee". Here, the defendant's family was involved in "considerable mixing of funds and assets"

Gorbunova v Berezovsky

Whether application for freezing order should have been made on notice/alleged breach of undertaking to serve

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/76.html

The respondent argued that an application for a freezing order against him should not have been made without notice. Although it is a basic principle that an order should not be made against a party without giving him an opportunity to be heard, there are certain exceptions. These include situations where the matter is urgent or where the giving of notice would defeat the purpose of the order (because the respondent would take steps to remove assets once he has notice of the application).

Mann J rejected the argument that the application here had been made on the basis that it was urgent. Instead, the real reason for the without notice character was the risk of the order being defeated. On the evidence, he found that that reason had been justified here: the respondent was a "man under financial pressure" who might try to satisfy other creditors rather than the applicant. He also had a "propensity to go so far as giving dishonest evidence in pursuit of a claim" (in different proceedings), "coupled with his use of obscure offshore structures...which can easily be manipulated by him for his own purposes".

The applicant had given an undertaking to serve the order as soon as practicable. The order was obtained on 20 December but the injunction material was not served until 4 January 2013. The issue was whether the applicant should have served the eight different defendants as and when she could or whether she had been justified in serving them all simultaneously (it had taken her some time to track down/ affect valid service on some of the defendants). The judge agreed that all the defendants should have been served at the same time (and the order must have been made on that basis). The applicant could not have achieved such service any sooner than she had. Even if that was wrong, the delay in service was not so "egregious" as to justify a discharge of the order.

Singh v Yaqubi

Whether claimant needed replacement car - of possible interest to motor insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/23.html

The claimant's Rolls Royce was damaged by the defendant's car and he hired a Bentley for five days and then a Rolls Royce for a further 6 weeks. He sought recovery of those hire charges. The claimant is a partner in a property development business and the car which was damaged was one of the business's fleet of seven vehicles. The Court of Appeal has held that he had to show "a reasonable need" for a replacement Rolls Royce during the period of repair. The first question which needs to be addressed is whether the claimant needed a replacement car at all. The Court of Appeal rejected the claimant's argument that that basic principle (established by Lord Mustill in Giles v Thompson [1994]) has been weakened by subsequent cases. Furthermore, need had to be proven by the claimant and could not be inferred by the judge. Once proven, the defendant would then need to prove that the need had been met in a reasonable manner.

It was held that the claimant had not proven his need for any replacement car. Pill LJ said "Very large hire claims such as this one should be scrutinised carefully by the court and particularly when the business partnership, which was required to establish the need, had a fleet of seven prestigious cars on the same insurance. For such a business claim to succeed, the judge was entitled to require specific evidence of need, such as evidence of the actual use of the vehicle for business purposes before the accident and the use to which the hired vehicle was put during the period of hire".

Phoenix Life Assurance v FSA

Interpreting insurance policies

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/60.html

This case turned on the interpretation of a particular with-profits policy. Of general interest are the comments made by Smith J on interpreting insurance policies. The defendant argued that in cases of conflict between the two, a policy schedule should prevail over the policy wording because the schedule is specific to the policyholder. Reference was made to a speech by Lord Bingham in The Starsin [2003] in which he said that "it is common sense that greater weight should attach to terms which the particular contracting parties have chosen to include in the contract than to pre-printed terms probably devised to cover very many situations to which the particular contracting parties have never addressed their minds" (emphasis added).

The judge found that in this case, that principle did not assist the defendant because particular conditions in the policy itself had been selected. Even though those conditions were "pre-printed terms" (and so excessive weight should not be given to their exact wording when interpreting their application in a particular contract), it did show that the operative conditions had not in fact been chosen in the policy schedule.

Henry v NGN

Costs budgeting and departing from the budget

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/19.html

On 1 April 2013, a raft of new measures set out in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act will come into force. Amongst these are new requirements to exchange and file costs budgets in all multi-track cases (ie cases worth more than £15,000) commenced on or after 1 April 2013 in a county court, the Chancery or Queen's Bench Division (except the Admiralty and Commercial Courts) unless the court otherwise orders, and to any other proceedings where the courts orders.

However, costs budgets are already in use in certain types of cases, including defamation. In this defamation case, the court approved both sides' budgets and neither side sought approval to any revised budget. The case then settled but the parties could not agree costs and during detailed assessment proceedings, the respondent objected to the appellant's bill of costs on the grounds that it exceeded the budget.

The Court of Appeal has now handed down a judgment which will be of interest as it indicates the approach which courts might adopt in future on this issue. Although a court will not normally allow costs in an amount which exceeds the budget, there may be good reasons for departing from the budget. Moore-Bick LJ said that when considering whether there is a good reason, it is necessary to take into account not just all the circumstances of the case but also the objective of the costs budgeting regime (ie to to ensure costs remain proportionate and the parties are on an equal footing).

Here, the appellant's solicitors had failed to comply with the relevant practice direction but that didn't mean a departure from the approved budget had to be rejected. The Court of Appeal noted that the costs budget is not meant to act as a cap. Here, there was good reason to allow a departure because:

(1) the appellant's failure did not put the respondent at a disadvantage or cause it to incur unreasonable costs

(2) the respondent failed to comply with the practice direction and exceeded its budget too

(3) the court was less active than it should have been in monitoring expenditure, and

(4) the respondent failed to protest when first informed of the appellant's costs

Despite this outcome, Moore-Bick LJ cautioned that: "The primary function of the budget is to ensure that the costs incurred are not only reasonable but proportionate to what is at stake in the proceedings. If, as is the intention of the rule, budgets are approved by the court and revised at regular intervals, the receiving party is unlikely to persuade the court that costs incurred in excess of the budget are reasonable and proportionate to what is at stake".

Navig8 PTE v Al-Riyadh

Whether applications to hear jurisdiction challenge and summary judgment should be heard together

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2012/3925. html

It is only in very rare cases that a summary judgment application should be heard immediately after a jurisdiction challenge has been heard (ie that they should be listed to be heard together at the same hearing). This is because:

(1) if the jurisdiction challenge fails, the defendant should be given a chance to consider whether to contest the claim on the merits and participate in the English proceedings, and

(2) defendants shouldn't have to prepare for a hearing on the merits of a claim before their jurisdiction challenge has been heard

The claimant sought to rely on an earlier case where a court had proceeded immediately to determine an application for summary judgment after rejecting a jurisdiction challenge. However, Popplewell J distinguished that case on the basis that here there was a foreign defendant and permission was needed to serve out. Accordingly, the two applications were not listed together.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Nigel Brook
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
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

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com 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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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