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
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