UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 25 February 2014

Last Updated: 28 February 2014
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the seventh edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2014.

A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law.

This week's caselaw

Ted Baker v Axa
Insurers seeking permission to appeal after further documents disclosed to them/estoppel by convention argument .

Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances
Court of Appeal determines governing law for an issue concerning expert evidence.

Clark & Anor v In Focus Asset Management
Court of Appeal rules that a claimant cannot accept a FOS award and pursue further losses from the courts for the same cause of action.

Lakatamia Shipping v Nobu Su
Application for relief from sanctions where disclosure list was served 45 minutes late.

The Bank of Ireland & Anor v Philip Pank
Court grants relief from sanctions where budget did not contain correct statement of truth.

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets
Court of Appeal decision on vicarious liability and the close connection test.

Ted Baker v Axa

Insurers seeking permission to appeal after further documents disclosed to them/estoppel by convention argument

Weekly Update 19/12 reported the first instance decision in this case, in which the judge held, as a preliminary issue, that the insurance policy in question did cover theft by employees, despite the insured's non-selection of a "Theft by Employees Section". In reaching this conclusion, the judge had held the insured was not estopped by convention from reliance on the natural meaning of the wording of the insuring clauses. No challenge was initially made by the insurers to that conclusion. However, following further disclosure from the insured, they sought permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has now refused that permission. The evidence which had come to light related to the subjective belief of the broker's employee who had had primary responsibility for placing the insurance. Although the Court of Appeal recognised that this evidence could be of relevance because, "absent dishonesty, a person is more likely to communicate an assumption in line with his belief than one at odds with it", that evidence alone could not prove the estoppel by convention argument. That was because estoppel by convention requires each party to have a shared assumption, "and for that purpose what is critical is not subjective belief but the objective impression reasonably conveyed by the words or conduct "crossing the line". There does not appear to have been any significant issue concerning what did actually cross the line". In other words, it made no difference what cover the broker may have believed was being placed, the key was what impression the broker had reasonably conveyed to the insurer, and the new evidence did not help answer that question.

Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers Assurances

Court of Appeal determines governing law for an issue concerning expert evidence

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 04/13. The English claimant was injured in a car accident in France (caused by a negligent French driver) and he commenced proceedings in England against the other driver's French insurers. Damages fell to be assessed and Tugendhat J held that the issue of which expert evidence the court should order (and, in particular, the number of experts which should be called) fell to be determined by English, rather than French law (pursuant to Article 1.3 of the Rome II Regulation). This was because the rules as to expert evidence are a matter of "evidence and procedure" (rather than an issue relating to "the nature and assessment of damages", which falls under Article 15 of Rome II).

The Court of Appeal has now unanimously dismissed the appeal from that decision. The exclusion of "evidence and procedure" from the scope of Rome II meant that it was inevitable that there might not be uniformity of outcome on those issues between different member states: "It cannot be the case that the Regulation envisages that the law of the place where the damage occurs should govern the way in which evidence of fact or opinion is to be given to the court which has to determine the case". Accordingly, it is indeed inevitable that the same facts tried in different countries may result in different outcomes.

Longmore LJ said that it was also desirable for the Court of Appeal to express a view on the issue of whether the applicable law should be understood to include "judicial conventions and practices", for example "particular tariffs, guidelines or formulae" used by judges in the calculation of damages under the applicable law (which here was French law, since the accident happened in France). There has been conflicting textbook commentary on this point. The Court of Appeal held that, in the context of a regulation (or convention) which is intended to have international effect, a narrow view of "law" is inappropriate. Accordingly, it was permissible to take account of the French equivalent of our Judicial College Guidelines (formerly known as the English Judicial Studies Board "Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injury Cases"). In this way, the English court might endeavour to apply the law of damages so as to reflect, as accurately as possible, the level of damages that would actually be awarded in the French courts.

Clark & Anor v In Focus Asset Management

Court of Appeal rules that a claimant cannot accept a FOS award and pursue further losses from the courts for the same cause of action

The Financial Ombudsman has the power to award compensation of up to GBP 150,000. Under the FSA's Handbook, a complainant can choose to accept or reject an award and under section 228(5) of FSMA 2000, "if the complainant notifies the ombudsman that he accepts the determination, it is binding on the respondent and the complainant and is final". In Andrews v SBJ Benefit Consultants [2010], a High Court judge held that, because of the merger doctrine, a claimant cannot accept an award from the Financial Ombudsman and then claim additional losses (above the Ombudsman's limit) in civil proceedings before the courts. However, in the first instance decision in this case (see Weekly Update 01/13), another High Court judge held that the merger doctrine did not apply and there was nothing to stop a complainant using his award from the Ombudsman to finance his court proceedings to recover a greater amount. Accordingly, there were two conflicting High Court decisions on this issue. The appeal in this case has now unanimously held that court proceedings could not be brought for the same cause of action after a complainant has accepted an award from the Ombudsman.

Although the earlier High Court decisions were based on the merger doctrine, the Court of Appeal reached its conclusion based instead on the principle of res judicata. As explained in the decision: "The requirements of res judicata are different from those of merger. All that is necessary to bring merger into operation is that there should be a judgment on a cause of action. Res judicata may apply either because an issue has already been decided or because a cause of action has already been decided" (the latter kind of res judicata was in issue in this case).

The Court of Appeal held that an award from the Ombudsman can give rise to res judicata, because a complaint to the Ombudsman can be a cause of action (and it makes no difference whether the Ombudsman's award was for the maximum sum allowed or not). It acknowledged that there could be situations where a complainant may bring court proceedings after accepting an award, provided that the substance of the court proceedings differs from the substance of the complaint to the Ombudsman. Fresh proceedings cannot be permitted, though, where court proceedings are being used to "top up" an award.

Furthermore, where Parliament is silent on an issue, the common law still applies unless it has been excluded. Accordingly, res judicata could apply in this case even though section 228(5) made no reference to it.

Having reached that conclusion on res judicata, there was no need for the Court of Appeal to consider whether merger was also available.

COMMENT: This case has brought some welcome clarity to the issue of whether a complainant's acceptance of an Ombudsman's award is truly binding in relation to that complaint. However, it does still remain possible for a complainant to reject an award and pursue recovery for the full amount of his claim from the courts.

Lakatamia Shipping v Nobu Su

Application for relief from sanctions where disclosure list was served 45 minutes late

The court made an order that the defence would be struck out unless standard disclosure was provided "on or by 17 January 2014". No time of day was specified in the order. However, para D19.2 of the Commercial Court Guide provides that, absent specific provision in an order, the latest time for compliance is 4.30pm on the day in question. In this case, the defendant's solicitors mistakenly believed that the deadline was 5pm and the defendant's list was not ready until about 4.40pm. Although the defendant's solicitors offered to exchange at 4.45pm, there was some delay caused by the claimant's solicitors and so the defendant's solicitors did not send the list until 5.15pm (i.e. 45 minutes late).

The defendant's solicitors applied for relief from sanctions under CPR r3.9. Hamblen J accepted that the non-compliance here was trivial and had caused no prejudice to the claimant (given that it was this particular, and no other, default in the case which had to be considered). However, he also found that there was no good reason for the default. The delay had not been due to circumstances beyond the control of the defendant - it had been due to a mistake by the defendant's solicitors (as to the time of the deadline and also because the solicitors had mistakenly believed that they had needed to exchange, rather than simply serve, the list).

Nevertheless, having regard to the list of factors which was previously included under CPR r3.9, the judge decided to exercise his discretion in this case to grant relief.

The Bank of Ireland & Anor v Philip Pank

Court grants relief from sanctions where budget did not contain correct statement of truth

Where a costs budget is required, this must contain a full statement of truth. In this case, although the claimant exchanged its costs budget with the defendant, that budget did not contain the correct statement of truth (as set out in PD 22). Nevertheless, Stuart-Smith J, whilst recognising the importance of statements of truth, said that that importance varies depending on context. Here, "the notion that a document which includes the words "Statement of Truth" and is signed by a partner in the firm of solicitors is a complete nullity seems to me to be quite unsustainable". Furthermore, there was nothing in the rules or practice directions which require any and every failure to comply with the formal requirements for budgets as rendering the budget nullity. To hold otherwise, the judge said, would "serve only to bring the rules of procedure and the law generally into disrepute". The absence of a correct statement of truth here was trivial and a failure of form rather than substance. Since the judge concluded that the claimant had not failed to file and exchange a costs budget, no relief from sanctions was required.

Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets

Court of Appeal decision on vicarious liability and the close connection test

The appellant, a customer, was seriously injured in an unprovoked attack by the respondent's employee which took place on the respondent's premises (a petrol station). At first instance, it was held that the appellant had not satisfied the test that there was a sufficiently close connection between the wrongdoing and the employment to make it fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable (the test laid down in Lister v Hesley Hall [2001]). The appellant brought this appeal, which has now been dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal distinguished this case from various cases in which an employee's job involved some obligation to keep order and involving potential confrontation with a customer. Here, an assault could not, and did not, further the employer's aims and "the situation was one in which friction, confrontation or intimacy was not...inherent" (as per Treacy LJ). The fact that the assault took place at the employee's place of work and at a time when he was on duty was relevant but not conclusive. It was held that the law was not yet at a stage where the mere fact of contact between a sales assistant and a customer, which is plainly authorised by an employer, is of itself sufficient to fix the employer with vicarious liability.

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

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

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

Nigel Brook
In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions