UK: (Re)Insurance Weekly Update 03-14

Last Updated: 13 March 2014
Article by Nigel Brook

Haxton v Philips Electronics

Court of Appeal decides whether a widow could recover full loss of dependency in proceedings brought in her own name – of possible interest to employers' liability insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/4.html

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 26/13. Mrs Haxton contracted mesothelioma during the course of her husband's employment with the defendant because she used to wash his work clothes, which were covered with asbestos dust. She brought two claims against the defendant: (1) a claim as executrix of her late husband's estate; and (2) a claim in her own name for her own mesothelioma. In the first claim, she claimed her loss of future dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. However, it is well-established that the amount of such a claim will depend on the life expectancy of the dependant and in this case, that had been reduced due to the admitted negligence of the defendant.

Mrs Haxton therefore sought to recover in the second claim the full loss of future dependency which she would have recovered, had she not developed mesothelioma. She argued that the compensatory nature of damages in personal injury claims should put her into the position which she would have been in had the wrong not occurred. That claim was rejected by the judge and she appealed. The Court of Appeal has now allowed her appeal.

It held that there were no policy reasons why the diminution in the value of her right to recover for loss of dependency could not be recovered as a head of loss in the claimant's personal action. Nor was the loss too remote: "It is reasonably foreseeable that a curtailment of life may lead to a diminution in the value of a litigation claim and if a claimant has such a claim, the wrongdoer must take the victim as he finds him. I would be inclined to think that this would be the case even if Mrs Haxton's tortfeasor had not been the same as her husband's. But the remoteness argument is, in my judgment, even harder to sustain in circumstances where the same tortfeasor is responsible for injuries to both husband and wife".

Dinsdale Moorland v Evans & Ors

Complying with an unless order for disclosure

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/2.html&query=title+(+dinsdale+and+evans+)&method=boolean

An unless order was made against the three defendants on the basis that their disclosure had been inadequate (specifically, that one composite list had been served, rather than three separate lists). Three lists were subsequently served on the claimant but the claimant alleged that the unless order had been breached and so sought a declaration that the defences had been struck out.

Behrens J, applying Realkredit v York Montagu [2013], held that as lists had been provided following the unless order, it would have to be shown that there had been a lack of good faith by the defendants, or that the lists were "illusory" in order to justify the declaration being sought (i.e., in the words of Toulson LJ, "it was obvious from patent deficiencies in the list that it had been prepared in apparent but not real compliance with the obligation to give discovery".

It was held that this test had not been satisfied here. Although reasons for redactions had not been stated in the lists, and some documents had been inadvertently omitted, those grounds did not amount to a lack of compliance with the unless order. Nor did it matter that an application for specific disclosure would, or might, elicit further documents.

The judge also referred to the recent Court of Appeal decisions of Mitchell (Weekly Update 43/13) and Durrant (Weekly Update 46/13), and said that if he had found that the unless order had been breached, it would have been most unlikely that he would have been able to grant relief from sanctions (although he would not have awarded the claimant all its costs because it had failed to set out its concerns regarding the lists, despite being asked to do so by the defendants).

Webb Resolutions v E-Surv

Application to extend time to seek permission to appeal/application of Mitchell where no sanction specified

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/49.html

An order refusing permission to appeal (on paper) was made in July 2013 but the defendant did not receive that order until 10 October 2013. The defendant subsequently served an application for an extension of time within which to seek an oral renewal of its application for permission. Blair J then made an order both extending time and giving permission to appeal. The claimant sought to set aside that order (relying on CPR r23.11(2) which allows a party which did not attend a hearing (as was the case with the claimant here) to have the application re-listed).

Turner J noted that the power to re-list an application should be used sparingly. He went on to find that Blair J had mistakenly taken into account the delay in sending the order to the defendant. Instead, CPR r52.3(5) provides that a request to renew an application for permission to appeal "must be filed within 7 days after the service of the notice that permission has been refused". There was no causal connection here between the delay in receiving the notice and the defendant's failure to comply with that 7 day deadline.

The Mitchell decision was handed down on the same day as the hearing before Blair J and the judge reached his decision without reading that judgment. However, Turner J held that the case had been of central relevance here. He said that although CPR r52.3(5) does not provide for a specific sanction if the application is served out of time (and so, strictly speaking CPR r3.9 did not apply), "I am satisfied, however, that it is appropriate for the court to apply the same approach to such an application as falls to be examined in this case as did the Court of Appeal to the breach relating to the costs budgeting in Mitchell". That was because CPR r52.3(5) was unequivocally expressed in mandatory terms, the 7 day deadline was deliberately short and there was a clear and compelling priority for there to be an end to litigation here.

Therefore, applying the Mitchell test, he found that the delay here had not been trivial and that there had been no good reason for it. Indeed, the defendant's solicitors' excuse that instructions had not been received from their client until after the 7 day deadline had expired was said to be a "thoroughly bad" reason.

Accordingly, Blair J's order was set aside.

COMMENT: Since no sanction was specified in the rules for a breach of the relevant provision in this case, the parties here could have agreed to extend time but since the claimant was obviously not prepared to do so, a contested application had to be brought. Although Mitchell was decided in the context of an application for relief from sanctions, this case makes it clear that the principles laid down in that case will be applied by the courts in relation to applications to extend time too, since such applications will still be governed by the new overriding objective which places an emphasis on enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.

M A Lloyd v PPC International

Failure to serve witness statement in time/whether witness cannot be called to give evidence on other witness statements

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/41.html

The claimant was ordered to serve its witness statements regarding a certain issue by 24 October 2013 and the defendant was ordered to serve its witness statements in reply by 29 November. The claimant failed to serve a witness statement (subsequently arguing that it could not do so before the defendant had disclosed certain documents to it) and the defendant applied for an extension of time to file its own witness statements.

Turner J criticised the claimant's solicitors for failing to attend the hearing and instead emailing the defendant's solicitors with a proposed consent order. Although the court has a power under CPR r23.11 to re-list an application where one of the parties is absent, that power is to be exercised sparingly. Furthermore, a party cannot assume that it can absent itself in the assumption that if it is unhappy with the order made it can then rely on CPR r23.11: "Absence in these circumstances may very well turn out to be a false economy".

CPR r32.10 provides that the consequence of failing to serve a witness statement in time is that "the witness may not be called to give oral evidence unless the court gives permission". Turner J queried whether, where the statement of a witness was intended to relate to a distinct issue, a defaulting party will also be precluded from relying on that witness's evidence contained in other witness statements (which were served in time). Although not required to decide the point, he suggested that this would not be the case, although he did raise the possibility that deployment of the witness's oral evidence on such other matters might be dependent on obtaining the permission of the court.

Applying the Mitchell decision, the judge declined to grant relief from sanctions. It did not help that the clamant had volunteered a proposed consent order – the parties cannot agree to extend time where the rules provide a sanction for non-compliance: "This court is under a duty...not simply to adjudicate passively upon the applications of the parties or to rubber stamp their reciprocal procedural indulgencies but actively to manage cases. To this end the court has power under CPR r3.3 to make orders of its own initiative".

Finally, the judge said that the defendant here had been "unduly timid". It should have applied to court in respect of the claimant's default in complying with the order. Nor could it be said that the defendant was in default. The obligations imposed by the order on the defendant were to be "in response" to compliance by the claimant with its own obligations. Since the defendant had nothing to respond to, it could not be in default.

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