UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 4 June 2013

Last Updated: 10 June 2013
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the twentieth 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

  • Wilson v Ministry of Defence
    Court considers the meaning of "the trial has started" in CPR r36.
  • Venulum Property v Space Architecture & Ors
    An application to extend time demonstrates the new approach of the courts post-Jackson.
  • Rogers & Anor v Hoyle
    A Clyde & Co case on whether an independent accident report is admissible as evidence.
  • Mauritius Commercial Bank v Hestia Holdings & Anor
    A case on whether the parties can change the governing law of a jurisdiction agreement.
  • Cruz City 1 v Unitech
    Court decides whether an arbitration claim form could be served on the defendant's solicitors and disclosure of assets for enforcement.

Wilson v Ministry of Defence

The meaning of "the trial has started" in CPR r36

A Part 36 offer can be accepted at any time before it is withdrawn. However, the permission of the court is needed to accept a Part 36 offer if (inter alia) "the trial has started" (see CPR r36.9(3)(d)). This case concerned the meaning of those words.

The claimant suffered personal injury as a result of her exposure to asbestos while laundering her husband's clothes (which were contaminated with asbestos dust as a result of his employment). The defendant employer admitted liability for her injury but its primary defence was that the claim was time-barred. If the claim was not time-barred, it also disputed the nature and extent of the claimant's injuries. The judge ordered a separate trial of the issue of limitation (pursuant to his case management power under CPR r3.1(2)(i)). At the conclusion of that trial (with judgment given in favour of the claimant) and two days before the start of the final assessment hearing, the defendant purported to accept the claimant's earlier Part 36 offer. The claimant argued that the court's permission was required because trial had already started. The defendant countered that it was entitled to accept a Part 36 offer without the court's permission in the period between the two separate trials.

Iain Hughes QC HHJ (on appeal from the district judge's decision that the court's permission was required) held that CPR r36.9(3(d) "takes effect at the start of the first (or only) contested trial. Thereafter, and without interruption, the requirement to obtain permission continues until the conclusion of the action as a whole". Accordingly, the court's permission had been required for the defendant to accept the Part 36 offer.

The judge held that Part 36 should not be construed without regard to the rest of the CPR. For example, a definition of trial had been set out in CPR r45 and the fact that that definition was not repeated in CPR r36 was significant. Nothing in the wording of the Part 36 rule suggested that "the trial has started" meant the start of each separate contested hearing. Furthermore, Part 36 is designed to encourage early settlement. The interpretation which the judge was giving to the words in question would not make it harder to settle: "the court is most unlikely to refuse to permit the parties to settle on the basis of a Part 36 offer, but is likely to impose terms that prevent the offeror being disadvantaged by the fact that an early Part 36 offer was only accepted after the start of the trial, or the start of the trial of the contested issue".

Venulum Property v Space Architecture & Ors

Application to extend time and the new approach of the courts

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2013/1242.html

CPR r7.4(1) provides that particulars of claim must be served on a defendant within 14 days of service of the claim form. However, CPR r7.4(2) provides that "particulars of claim must be served on the defendant no later than the latest time for serving a claim form". In this case, the claim form was served on the last day for service (ie 4 months after the issue of the claim form) and right at the end of the relevant limitation period. The claimant's solicitors mistakenly believed that they could serve the particulars 14 days later, whereas, here, the particulars should have been served with the claim form. The claimant therefore sought an extension of time for service of the particulars of claim in accordance with CPR r3.1 (which allows the court to extend time for compliance with a rule) and CPR r3.9 (relief from sanctions).

As has been previously reported, CPR r3.9 has been radically amended with the replacement of the nine factors which the court had to take into account with just two factors (the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and the need to enforce compliance with the rules).

The transitional provisions provide that the change to CPR r3.9 does not apply to applications for relief from sanctions made before 1 April 2013. The application here was made before that date, but the parties agreed that, since the application was made under CPR r3.1, the amendments to CPR r3.9 were relevant. Counsel for the defendant conceded that the nine factors deleted from CPR r3.9 could not now be ignored, even though they no longer had to be taken into account. Edwards-Stuart J found that the factors were fairly evenly balanced in this case. The absence of a good reason for non-compliance with the time limit was an important factor, but on the other hand, the claim would be lost if the application failed.

Although the judge felt it might ordinarily be proportionate to allow the application, three factors militated against that conclusion:

  1. The claimant had delayed for over 5 years before instructing solicitors;
  2. The claim against the defendant in question was not a strong one and there was reason to believe that the claimant would be able to recover in full from the other defendants (who, the judge noted, appeared to be covered by suitable insurance); and
  3. The claimant was seeking to advance a bad faith claim that was vaguely worded.

In light of the stricter approach to be taken by the courts where there has been a failure to comply with the rules, the judge concluded that the application should be refused.

Rogers & Anor v Hoyle

Whether an independent accident report is admissible as evidence

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/1409.html&query=rogers+and+hoyle&method=boolean

Clyde & Co (David Willcox and Andrew Krausz) for defendant

The issue in this case was whether a report produced by the accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport was admissible as evidence. Leggatt J held as follows:

  1. The report contained a mix of statements of fact and statements of opinion. The factual evidence was admissible since it was relevant and the fact that it is hearsay was not a ground for its exclusion (in light of the Civil Evidence Act 1995).
  2. The statements of opinion would be admissible if made by qualified experts on subjects involving special expertise. However, the defendant sought to rely on prior caselaw which had found that the findings of tribunals and inquiries are not admissible in subsequent proceedings. The judge held that the rationale for this is that it is the duty of the court to form its own opinion on the evidence put before it and the court should not be influenced by the opinion of someone else, however reliable that opinion might be.
  3. However, the judge found that a distinction needed to be drawn between judicial findings and expert opinions. Here, he decided that the report contained findings by an expert investigator and not a judge. Nor had the investigator acted as a judge. Instead, it was held that the report was similar to an expert report commissioned by the parties to litigation (although it did not fall within CPR r35). Accordingly, the report was admissible as evidence.
  4. The judge also refused to exercise his discretion under CPR r32 to exclude the report in whole or in part. Instead, it was for a trial judge to assess how much weight should be given to findings in the report which had not been attributed to any named individual (and was based on an exercise in evaluating and discarding evidence which had not been disclosed).

Mauritius Commercial Bank v Hestia Holdings & Anor

Whether parties can change the governing law of a jurisdiction agreement

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/1328.html

The parties entered into an agreement which was governed by the law of Mauritius and provided that the courts of Mauritius would have exclusive jurisdiction. Thereafter, the parties entered into an Amendment and Restatement Agreement which provided that the agreement would be governed by English law and that the English courts would have exclusive jurisdiction. Following a dispute, the claimant began proceedings here and the defendant sought a stay on the ground that the English court did not have jurisdiction.

Article 3.2 of the Rome 1 Regulation permits the parties to change the governing law of their agreement at any time but Article 1(2)(e) excludes jurisdiction agreements from the scope of the Regulation. The issue of whether the parties in this case had changed the governing law of the jurisdiction clause in their agreement therefore fell to be governed by the English rules of private international law.

Popplewell J held that it is possible under those rules for the parties to agree a prospective change to the law governing their jurisdiction agreement (although he left open the question of whether the parties could also agree a retrospective change - something which does have some prior judicial support).

He held that there was a strong policy for allowing this on the ground of contractual autonomy. There might be a variety of good commercial reasons why the parties might want to change the governing law of their agreement, and hence a desire to also change an agreement on jurisdiction so that the courts of the newly chosen jurisdiction could apply their own system of law.

In any event, the claimant had established English jurisdiction in this case by serving on the defendant's designated agent in accordance with a clause in the contract (and pursuant to CPR r6.11(1) - service of the claim form by a contractually agreed method).

Cruz City 1 v Unitech

Whether arbitration claim form could be served on defendant's solicitors/disclosure of assets for enforcement

Cooke J permitted service of an arbitration claim form by an alternative method under CPR r6.15 - namely service on the defendants' solicitors who had not been authorised to accept service. The defendants argued that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify such an order here. That argument was rejected by Field J. He noted that it was the "invariable practice" of the Commercial Court in relation to arbitration applications relating to arbitrations seated within the jurisdiction, to allow service on a party's solicitor who has acted for that party in the arbitration (provided that that solicitor does not appear to have been disinstructed and absent any other special circumstances). He held that that practice should apply in this case.

The claimant sought an order under section 37 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to compel the defendants to provide disclosure, verified by the affidavit of a proper officer, of all their assets worldwide (in order to aid enforcement of an award in its favour). The defendants sought to rely on the House of Lords decision in Masri v Consolidated Contractors (see Weekly Update 30/09) to argue that the court had no power to compel their manager (who is resident and domiciled in Greece) to attend court and give information about their assets. That argument was also rejected by Field J. Although Masri held that CPR r71 does not have extra-territorial effect, that does not meant that a post-judgment order made under section 37 of the SCA 1981, against a party who is subject to English jurisdiction, is no longer valid. Here, the order was not addressed to a non-party outside the jurisdiction, but instead was an order against the defendants who are subject to the court's jurisdiction.

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