UK: (Re)Insurance Weekly Update 11-14

Last Updated: 31 March 2014
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the eleventh 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

  • Hoyle v Rogers & Anor
    A Clyde & Co case in which the Court of Appeal rules that an independent accident report is admissible as evidence.
  • Watts v Watts
    A case on whether a judge should recuse himself if he is working with one party's counsel in a separate case.
  • Allen & Ors v Depuy
    A decision on Rome II and when do events giving rise to the damage occur.
  • Haynes v Dept for Business Innovation and Skills
    Costs consequences of a Part 36 offer which was made to, and accepted by, only one of several defendants.
  • Apex Global v FI Call Ltd & Ors
    A security for costs application where one respondent is a nominal claimant and where there are cross-claims.
  • Integral Petroleum v SCU-Finanz
    A case on whether time for service of a defence started running where particulars of claim were not served in accordance with the rules.
  • Energy Venture Partners v Malabu Oil & Gas
    A decision on whether a court can order judgment interest to run until a certain date.
  • LCIA: Arbitration Rules 2014
    The LCIA has produced a draft of its new Arbitration Rules 2014.

Hoyle v Rogers & Anor

Court of Appeal rules that an independent accident report is admissible as evidence

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/257.html

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

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 20/13. The judge held that a report produced by the accident investigation branch of the Department of Transport (containing a mix of fact and opinion) was admissible as evidence and the defendant appealed. The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal, holding as follows:

  1. The rule in Hollington v Hewthorn [1943], that factual findings made by judges in civil cases are inadmissible in subsequent proceedings, does not apply to findings by expert witnesses: "Insofar as an expert gives evidence of fact (e.g. where he found the wreckage to be) his evidence is as admissible as that of any other person. Where his evidence is evidence of opinion it is admissible because it is the product of a special expertise which the trial judge is unlikely to possess and which, even if he did, it is not his function to apply". The authors of the report here were experts in their respective fields. Nor did it make any difference that the report was produced as part of a team effort.

    The Court of Appeal also held that: "Insofar as an expert's report does no more than opine on facts which require no expertise of his to evaluate, it is inadmissible and should be given no weight on that account. But, as the judge also observed, there is nothing to be gained, except in very clear cases, from excluding or excising opinions in this category".
  2. CPR r35 is not a comprehensive and exclusive code regulating the admission of expert evidence. Expert evidence can be received "outside the confines of CPR r35". Furthermore, since the report did not fall within CPR r35, the claimant had not needed the permission of the court to adduce it.
  3. The judge was entitled not to exercise his discretion to exclude the otherwise admissible report (pursuant to CPR r32). The report was of potential value because of the impartial nature of the investigation, which had not sought to apportion blame. Here, the claimants may have had no other way of gathering the relevant information regarding the air accident. Nor should the admissibility of the report impede or inhibit the investigators.

Watts v Watts

Whether judge should recuse himself if he is working with one party's counsel in a separate case

The issue in this case was whether a judge should recuse himself where he is acting with the counsel for one of the parties in an entirely separate case. The appropriate test to be applied is that laid down in Porter v Magill [2002]:"whether the fair-minded and informed observer, having considered the facts, would conclude that there was a real possibility that the tribunal was biased". Two earlier decisions considered by the judge were distinguished on the basis that in both those cases, the relevant individual was someone who might exercise "some unusual degree of authority" over the judge (e.g. in one case, a witness had been the judge's supervisor years earlier). Here, the judge was the senior, and counsel was the junior in the other case: "in my judgment, there is no real possibility that a fair-minded and informed observer would think that a Judge, even a deputy, would be biased in favour of another barrister who, on a completely different case, works in a team as a junior to the Judge". In any event, she shared no common financial or other interest with counsel in the outcome of either of the two cases.

Allen & Ors v Depuy

Rome II and when do events giving rise to the damage occur

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/753.html

As from 11 January 2009, the rules governing the choice of law for non-contractual obligations (e.g. torts) have been contained in the Rome II Regulation. The Regulation applies where "the events giving rise to the damage" occur after 11th January 2009.

The defendant manufactured prosthetic hip implants which were used in operations prior to 11 January 2009 (and which led to problems which might have arisen either before or after that date – it was not possible to determine exactly when). Stewart J held that Rome II did not apply here. The dates of the events giving rise to the damage was not the same as the date of damage – here, they were the date the allegedly defective hip implants were manufactured/distributed (or, failing that, the date of implantation). Accordingly, the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995 applied, with the result that the applicable law was the law of the country where the injury was sustained (which was not England). It did not make any difference that this was a generic liability allegation, not just a one-off.

Even if English law had applied, the claimants would not have been able to rely on the Consumer Protection Act 1987 because they were all non-EEA residents who suffered damage outside the EEA (in relation to products which had been supplied outside the EEA).

COMMENT: The case of Alliance Bank JSC v Aquanta Corp [2011], caused some uncertainty where the event giving rise to the damage and the damage itself occur at different times. Burton J suggested that the appropriate question was whether there was "damage occurring after 11 January 2009", rather than "events (giving rise to damage) occurring after 11 January 2009". However, here Stewart J said that he did not find Burton J's remarks to be of assistance (and in any event, both the parties here had agreed that his conclusion was erroneous).

Haynes v Dept for Business Innovation and Skills

Costs consequences of a Part 36 offer which was made to, and accepted by, only one of several defendants

The claimant in this case is the widow of an employee who was allegedly exposed to asbestos by ten employers (and the liability of those ten employers could only be several, and not joint and several). She issued proceedings against all ten and during those proceedings made separate Part 36 offers to each defendant, to settle the claim against that particular defendant. Only one (the Department for Business Innovation and Skills ("the Department")) accepted. The claims against the other nine defendants were then abandoned.

When a Part 36 offer is accepted (within the relevant period, as was the case here), the claimant is entitled to "the costs of the proceedings" up to the date of acceptance. Master Simons held that the Department was liable only for the costs directly attributable to the action against it and one-tenth of the common costs. The claimant appealed against that decision.

Jay J has now held that:

  1. The "costs of the proceedings" here were the costs of the proceedings against the particular defendant who accepted the offer – in a multi-party case, the defendant who accepts an offer should not have to pay all the costs, some of which might not have been caused by him.
  2. There were two types of common costs in issue in this case:

    1. Non-specific costs. These included court fees, medical records and travel expenses. They would have had to have been incurred in any event, regardless of the total number of defendants. Jay J held that the claimant would be entitled to 100% of these costs from the Department.
    2. Specific costs. These are common costs which are in principle capable of identification and division (e.g. a conference with Counsel concerning the liability of all ten defendants). It was held that here "evidence-based decisions are required, rather than an approach which simply identifies the number of defendants". In other words, there was no basis for simply ordering the Department to pay one-tenth of these costs.

Apex Global v FI Call Ltd & Ors

Security for costs application where one respondent is a nominal claimant and where there are cross-claims

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2014/779.html

Both the claimants and the defendants to this action sought orders for security for costs. Having determined that both parties had taken steps in relation to their assets which would make it difficult to enforce a costs order (CPR r25.13(2)(g)), Newey J considered the following two points:

  1. Was it right to order security for costs against one of the claimants who was a claimant in name only and was no longer asserting any claim in his own right? Although CPR r25.14 deals with security for costs against non-parties there is nothing in the rules to cover the situation where a party is named in the action. The judge held that it would not be appropriate to make a security for costs order against the claimant here if the conditions set out in CPR r25.14 were not met (which they weren't). That was because the defendants could not be incurring any costs in meeting a claim by this claimant.
  2. Should security be ordered where cross-claims were being made? Newey J referred to the case of Crabtree v GPT [1990], where the court did not order security for costs where there were cross-claims because the rival claims "raise essentially the same issues" and the grant of an order would result in the risk of "one-sided litigation" (i.e. the claimant cannot pursue its claim but the defendants are free to pursue their counterclaim). Although the judge also observed that in a case involving a claim and a cross-claim it can be right to order security in respect of both the claim and cross-claim, this case did not fall into that category. He said that " I cannot see how the issues to which [the defendant]'s petition gives rise can be satisfactorily disentangled from those arising from [the claimant]'s petition". Accordingly, no order for security for costs was made.

Integral Petroleum v SCU-Finanz

Whether time for service of a defence started running where particulars of claim were not served in accordance with the rules

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2014/702.html&query=title+(+integral+and+petroleum+)&method=boolean

The defendant applied to set aside judgment which the claimant obtained after it failed to file a defence in time. Under the rules, a defendant has 28 days after service of the particulars of claim to file a defence (if an acknowledgment of service has been filed).

The defendant sought to argue that time for filing its defence had not started running when the particulars of claim were emailed to the defendant's French lawyer, because the claimant had failed to comply with PD 6A (because neither the defendant nor the lawyer had indicated a willingness to accept service by email). The claimant sought to rely on CPR r3.10 (which provides that an error of procedure does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings (in the absence of a court order to that effect) and the court may remedy any error). Having reviewed the decision in Phillips v Nussberger (see Weekly Update 04/08), in which the House of Lords decided that the court did have power to dispense with service under CPR r.6.9 (in order to validate retrospectively what would otherwise have been ineffective service), Popplewell J held that the error of procedure here (the failure to serve the particulars of claim in accordance with the rules) did fall within the scope of CPR r3.10 and service should be treated as valid (so as to have started the time running for service of the defence). He reached that conclusion for the following reasons:

  1. The House of Lords established in Phillips v Nussberger that CPR r3.10 was to be construed as having a wide effect. It should be given even wider effect where a document other than the claim form is being served: "What the rules are concerned with in relation to the service of such subsequent documents is simply bringing them to the attention of the other party in circumstances in which that other party knows or should realise that a step has been taken which may have procedural consequences. This contrasts with the service of originating process which fulfils other functions".
  2. The substantive defect here involved using a method allowed under the English procedural rules but without complying with the necessary formalities. The judge observed that "I can envisage circumstances in which purported "service" by a method which is not permitted by the rules at all is sufficiently distant from what is required by the rules as arguably to fall outside CPR 3.10. ... But I would not accept ... that any defect in the method of service is outside CPR 3.10. The method of service applied in this case, namely service by e-mail, is one which in the 21st century is a common and effective way of transmitting a document and one which the Rules envisage may be used, albeit with certain conditions which are set out in the practice directions".

Energy Venture Partners v Malabu Oil & Gas

Whether a court can order judgment interest to run until a certain date

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2014/663.html

One of the issues in this case was whether a court has the power to stop post-judgment interest (at a rate of 8%) running after a certain date (rather than the date of payment of the judgment debt). Although s17(2) of the Judgments Act 1838 specifies that rules of court may provide that interest otherwise payable under s17(1) may be disallowed by the Court, there is nothing in CPR 40.8(1)(b), or otherwise in the rules of court, which permit the imposition of an "end-date". Eder J decided that it was unnecessary to decide this issue, though, and he instead said that he was prepared to assume that the court did have such a power. However, he found no reason, on the fact of the case, to stop judgment interest running from a date when (the defendant alleged) the claimant had refused to implement the judgment order.

LCIA: Arbitration Rules 2014

The LCIA has produced a draft of its new Arbitration Rules 2014. Some of the changes being proposed are as follows:

  1. The claimant must now include in its Request for Arbitration the estimated monetary amount or value of its claim and must also include confirmation that the registration fee has been or is being paid to the LCIA;
  2. Throughout the rules, 30 day deadlines have generally been replaced with a 28 day deadline. So, for example, the respondent's response must now be delivered within 28 days of the date of receipt by the Registrar of the Request (rather than the current requirement of 30 days from service of the Request on the respondent).
  3. Documentary proof of actual delivery of the Request and Response must be given (or, if actual delivery is proven to be impossible, sufficient information as to any other effective form of notification must be given). A party's last known place of business/residence has been replaced as a valid address for service with an address which has been regularly used in the parties' previous dealings.
  4. A potential arbitrator must now sign a written declaration that he/she is "ready, willing and able to devote sufficient time, diligence and industry to ensure the expeditious conduct of the arbitration".
  5. If no Response is received, the LCIA Court shall appoint the arbitral tribunal within 35 days from the date of receipt by the Registrar of the Request.
  6. In exceptional urgency, a party may (as an alternative to an application for the urgent formation of a tribunal) apply for the appointment of a temporary sole arbitrator pending the formation of the tribunal. There also new rules for the expedited appointment of a replacement arbitrator.
  7. Where a party is challenging an arbitrator, the other parties and the challenged arbitrator will now have a reasonable opportunity to comment on the challenging party's written statement. Other rules regarding the procedure for challenging an arbitrator are also being introduced.
  8. It will be confirmed that no party may unilaterally contact any member of the arbitral tribunal or the LCIA Court during the arbitration. Prior to the tribunal's formation, an arbitrator can consult the parties as to their views on the suitability of a potential presiding arbitrator.
  9. The parties will be able to elect in writing to have their Request/Response treated as their Statement of Case.
  10. Once the tribunal has been informed, any change of a party's legal representative must be notified promptly to the other parties and the tribunal and the registrar. The tribunal will have the power to withhold approval of any intended change where that might compromise the composition of the tribunal or the finality of any award (eg because of a potential conflict). The draft Rules also contain a new Annex with general conduct guidelines that apply to all legal representatives appearing by name before the tribunal.
  11. One of the key changes is that whereas the current Rules are silent on the issue of consolidation of various arbitrations into one single arbitration, the new Rules will make express provision for this where the same arbitration agreement, or any compatible arbitration agreement between the same disputing parties, covers different arbitrations (provided that no tribunal has already been formed before by the LCIA Court for such other arbitrations). Any consolidation will have to be approved by the LCIA Court.
  12. Where deposits are paid to the LCIA, they will attract interest at the rate from time to time credited to an overnight deposit with a bank.
  13. Awards will be able to be transmitted by electronic means (in addition to paper form). If there is any disparity between electronic and paper forms, the paper form will prevail.
  14. When assessing costs, the tribunal will be able to take account of the parties' conduct in the arbitration, including any failure to co-operate.
  15. The reference to the ability of the parties to agree not to keep awards and materials confidential will be removed.
  16. If the tribunal or a court finds any part of the arbitration agreement to be invalid or unenforceable, that will not adversely affect the award or appointment of the tribunal.

http://www.lcia.org//media/download.aspx?MediaId=336

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

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

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

Authors
Nigel Brook
 
In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.

Disclaimer

Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.

Registration

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.

Cookies

A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.

Links

This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.

Mail-A-Friend

If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.

Security

This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

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