UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 3 April 2013

Last Updated: 15 April 2013
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the twelfth edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2013.

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

Beazley & Ors v Al Ahleia Insurance Company & Ors
A case on the interpretation of a Claims Cooperation Clause.

Versloot Dredging v HDI Gerling
Court decides whether insured could have access to its insurer's witness before trial.

SOCA v Azam & Ors
A case on the Proceeds of Crime Act and whether assets outside the jurisdiction were lawfully brought here, and the use of disclosure orders.

Mengiste & Anor v Endowment Fund
Forum disputes and the approach of the courts and whether a fair trial could be obtained in Ethiopia.

Centrehigh v Kare Amen & Ors
The procedure for an application for a third party costs order.

Beazley & Ors v Al Ahleia Insurance Company & Ors

Interpretation of a Claims Cooperation Clause

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/677.html

The claimant underwriters had entered into a reinsurance contract with the defendant reinsured which contained (in relevant part) the following Claims Cooperation Clause ("CCC"): "It is a condition precedent to any liability under this Reinsurance that...a) the Reinsured shall upon knowledge of any loss or losses which may give rise to a claim under this Policy, advise the Reinsurers thereof as soon as reasonably practicable; b) The Reinsured shall furnish the Reinsurers with all information available respecting such loss or losses and the Reinsurers shall have the right ... to control all negotiations, adjustments, and settlements in connection with such loss or losses. c) No settlement and/or compromise shall be made and no liability admitted without the prior approval of Reinsurers".

The claimants alleged that the reinsured had breached paragraphs b) and c) of the CCC. There was no dispute that this was condition precedent. However, Eder J also held that the CCC operated as an exemption clause and should therefore be construed against the claimants, being the parties seeking to rely upon it.

Eder J rejected an argument by the defendant that although the wording may give reinsurers certain rights, it does not take away any of the defendant's rights. Thus, if reinsurers are denied an opportunity to exercise those rights, they will not be liable to pay. However, on the facts, he held that there had been no breach of b) because the reinsured had not entered into "negotiations" at the time alleged by the claimants. Even if there had been "negotiations", the judge said that "I do not think it was commercially realistic for [the reinsured's representative] to refuse to speak to [the insured's representative] when he phoned on 2 December and put the phone down. Nor do I consider that this was legally required by the terms of sub-paragraph b) of the CCC".

The judge went on to analyse paragraph c) of the CCC in detail, including:

  1. Did c) prohibit any settlement at all or only settlement of losses falling within a)? In other words, did it cover a settlement of the reinsured's retention or a settlement of the liability of another reinsurer (which was not a party to these proceedings). Although the wording of c) is unlimited, the judge said that it had to be construed in the context of the CCC as a whole. Furthermore, he held that it made commercial sense that c) would only cover losses which might give rise to a claim under the reinsurance policy and clear words would be needed to produce a different result.
  2. Does "settlement" cover a without prejudice settlement? Eder J held that "the word "settlement" imports, at the very least, either a legally binding agreement (whether oral or otherwise) or the actual transfer of consideration of some kind (whether money or otherwise) including what are sometimes described as "ex gratia payments"". It would therefore cover a legally binding settlement which might be expressed to be "without prejudice to liability".
  3. What does an "admission of liability" mean? Eder J held that it "must at the very least be one communicated in clear and unequivocal terms by one party to the other". However, an admission of part of a claim (rather than all of it) would suffice: "In other words, it is sufficient if the cedant admits the original insured has a valid claim; he does not have to admit liability in respect of the entirety of the claim provided such admission is one which is, as I have said, respecting or in connection with any loss or losses which might give rise to a claim under the [reinsurance policy]". However, an offer to pay money or to settle is not, of itself, an "admission of liability".

On the facts of the case, Eder J concluded that there had been no breach of c) of the CCC either.

COMMENT: This case seems to be part of a trend to construe condition precedent CCCs very narrowly. It also confirms that the burden will be on reinsurers to prove a breach of the clause.

Versloot Dredging v HDI Gerling

Whether insured could have access to insurer's witness before trial

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/581.html

The claimant insured applied for an injunction against the defendant underwriters, requiring them to withdraw their instruction to their witness not to talk to, or provide information to, the claimant. The witness in question was a surveyor who had been retained to investigate the cause and extent of a loss. He had been present at meetings with the defendants and their experts and solicitors, where the case and defence had been discussed. He might also be in possession of confidential (if not privileged) information. However, the claimant sought to rely on the principle that there is no property in a witness.

Clarke J agreed that the claimant would be able to call the surveyor at trial (although in this case the defendants did intend to call him and so the claimant would then have an opportunity to cross-examine him). However, in this case, the claimant sought access to the surveyor before trial. The judge held as follows:

  1. In the absence of a subpoena, it was up to the surveyor to decide if he wished to assist the claimant.
  2. The claimant's solicitor committed no impropriety by asking the surveyor for information, even though he had been retained by the defendants.
  3. The fact that the surveyor could be compelled at trial to reveal confidential information does not mean that he ie entitled to do so before trial.
  4. It cannot be a contempt of court for the defendants to tell the surveyor that he may not reveal information which is truly privileged or confidential. However, "What a solicitor is not entitled to do, or indeed a party, is to order or instruct a witness or a potential witness not to attend an interview with the opposing solicitor or to tell him that he has no real choice in the matter, or to put pressure on him not to comply. Nor must he make it appear that the witness can only be interviewed if the solicitor or his principal consents".

Accordingly, it was up to the surveyor to decide if he wishes to assist the claimant. Similarly, if he did choose to meet the claimant, he could also choose whether his evidence should be recorded. Finally, although not necessary to do so, Clarke J also dealt with the defendants' argument that, in view of the procedure laid down in CPR r 32.5 for the cross-examination of witnesses at trial, it would be inappropriate to allow an "advance cross-examination". The judge rejected that argument: the CPR is not to be treated as the sole source of rights and obligations in respect of witnesses - those rights and obligations will instead be governed by the law relating to confidence, privilege and contempt.

COMMENT: Although this case confirms that a witness is not entitled to share confidential information with the other side, there may still be a risk if a witness chooses to meet with the other side for whatever reason. It would probably therefore still be prudent to limit (so far as practically possible) the degree of confidential information shared with any potential witnesses (notwithstanding that the witness will owe a duty not to disclose confidential information to the other side).

SOCA v Azam & Ors

Proceeds of Crime Act and whether assets outside the jurisdiction were lawfully brought here/use of disclosure orders

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/627.html

In Perry & Ors v SOCA (see Weekly Update 27/12), the Supreme Court held that the High Court has no jurisdiction under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to make a recovery order in relation to property outside England and Wales. In this case, an order had been made (before the Supreme Court decision) over money held in a Luxembourg bank account. It was therefore now accepted that that order should not have been made (although at the time the order was made it had been permissible to make such an order). Jack J concluded that the monies had been lawfully brought within the jurisdiction and that there were no grounds for returning them to Luxembourg. He also noted that this aspect of the Perry decision will be retrospectively reversed by the Crime and Courts Bill, which is expected to come into force in late April or May this year.

The judge also considered whether a disclosure order made for the purpose of a civil recovery investigation could be used to obtain evidence to build a case against a respondent that he had been involved in unlawful conduct. He concluded that it could be. That is because the investigation itself involved establishing that property is recoverable because it was obtained by unlawful conduct (and so SOCA must establish that the respondent was involved in unlawful conduct). This position differs from that of a confiscation investigation.

Mengiste & Anor v Endowment Fund

Forum disputes and the approach of the courts/whether a fair trial could be obtained in Ethiopia

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2013/599.html

In Spiliada Maritime v Cansulex [1987], Lord Templeman gave guidance on applications challenging proceedings brought here on the ground that England is not a forum conveniens. He said that he hoped that a judge would be "allowed to study the evidence...in the quiet of his room without expense to parties; and that submissions will be measured in hours and not days". In this case, though, Smith J cautioned against placing too much reliance on this observation. Here, a hearing on the appropriate jurisdiction took 12 days, but the judge said that this amount of time had been required because "everything was in dispute". He said that "This demonstrates that there is no possibility of assuming that every case on this jurisdiction would be dealt with as optimistically forecast by Lord Templeman".

The claimants also sought to challenge the fairness of the Ethiopian judicial system (both in relation to issues already decided by the courts there and on the basis that the political system there is such that there was a real prospect they would suffer harm if the case was heard there).

The English court approaches such arguments with "considerable circumspection" - there has to be cogent evidence that a fair trial cannot take place in the foreign country. Smith J held that this test had not been met here. However, he also held that the fact an English judgment might not be enforceable in Ethiopia was not relevant.

Centrehigh v Kare Amen & Ors

Procedure for an application for a third party costs order

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/ Ch/2013/625.html&query=centrehigh&method=Boolean

The claimants sought a third party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981. The issue in this case was whether an application should be determined following a full trial. Normally, an applicant for an order under section 51 is not entitled to a full trial and the court instead will look at the material before it, having regard to such documents and witness statements as are available. Morgan J recognised that this approach "will often fall short of the very high standards which are conventionally applied where there is a full trial preceded by pre-trial procedures, and involving cross-examination of witnesses". However, he said that the courts have decided, as a matter of policy, that such applications are to be "kept within proper bounds" and there was no feature of this case which made it appropriate for a full trial to take place.

Please note there will be no update next week

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
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (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 www.mondaq.com

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 Mondaq.com’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.

Disclaimer

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.

Registration

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 unsubscribe@mondaq.com 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.

Cookies

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.

Links

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.

Mail-A-Friend

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.

Security

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 webmaster@mondaq.com.

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 EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

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 enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.