UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weeky Update - 13 January 2015

Last Updated: 21 January 2015
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the first edition of Clyde & Co's (Re)insurance and litigation caselaw weekly updates for 2015.

These updates are aimed at keeping you up to speed and informed of the latest developments in caselaw relevant to your practice. Please follow this link for further details of the following recent cases:

Regulation 44/2001 was replaced by Regulation 1215/2012 on 10 January 2015.

A summary of the new Brussels Regulation, which came into force on 10 January 2015.

This week's caselaw

Vestergaard v Bestnet Europe
A case on whether joint without prejudice privilege attaches to the first offer.

Barnett v Creggy
A judge considers a limitation defence and acknowledging a debt, as well as the appropriate rate of interest on a judgment in US dollars.

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Bank v Pugachev
A case on reliance on hearsay evidence in a freezing order application and proving the risk of dissipation.

Public Joint Stock Company v Maksimov
A judge disapproves of a contempt of court application following the breach of a freezing order.

Regulation 44/2001 was replaced by Regulation 1215/2012 on 10th January 2015.

The main points under the new Regulation are as follows:

(1) Regulation 1215/2012 restates the arbitration exception and confirms that proceedings relating to arbitration fall outside of its scope. As a result it clarifies that any court proceedings brought in order to support an arbitration (including enforcing or challenging an award and deciding the validity of an arbitration agreement) fall outside the scope of the Regulation, and hence a court which is not first seised can decide these matters, despite the risk of parallel judgments. If, for example, the agreement between the parties provides for London arbitration but one party commences court proceedings in Italy, and the Italian court then finds that there is no valid arbitration agreement and goes on to rule on the underlying merits of the case, that judgment must still be recognised and enforced by other EU courts. However, if the English court finds that the arbitration agreement is binding and the arbitrators eventually make an award, it is not currently clear whether the Italian judgment or the award will take precedence. Recital 12 of the Regulation suggests that the award might take priority, but does not expressly state this.

(2) The EU court named in an exclusive jurisdiction clause can hear the case, even if it is not the court first seised in the EU now. Other EU courts must stay their proceedings if the court named in the clause determines that it does have jurisdiction. The court named in the exclusive jurisdiction clause can hear the case even if the court first seised has not yet decided on a stay.

(3) A jurisdiction clause will fall within the scope of the Regulation even if neither party is domiciled in the chosen EU state or any other EU state. So, for example, if the English court is chosen to have jurisdiction, permission to serve out will not now be required even if neither party is domiciled in the EU (but if proceedings are ongoing in another EU country, permission will be required if the jurisdiction clause is not exclusive).

(4) The EU courts now have a discretion to stay their proceedings in favour of a non-EU court if the non-EU court was first seised. The non-EU court's judgement must also be capable of recognition and enforcement in order for a stay to be granted.

In a separate development, Advocate General Wathelet has recently issued an Opinion in the case of "Gazprom" OAO. In it, he opined that the recast Regulation overturns the West Tankers decision (see Weekly Update 06/09) and that if the same facts were to arise again, the English court would be entitled to issue an anti-suit injunction, as such an injunction would not be incompatible with the recast Regulation (the Regulation itself is silent on this point). The opinion can be found below. The ECJ will not reach a decision in this case, though, until spring this year. Although the ECJ usually follows an Advocate General's opinion, it is not obliged to do so and it remains to be seen whether the ECJ will adopt the same approach as Advocate General Wathelet. 09&mode=lst&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first∂=1&text=&docl ang=EN&cid=108502

Vestergaard v Bestnet Europe

Whether joint without prejudice privilege attaches to first offer

The defendants wished to contest the claimants' entitlement to its costs (following judgment in the claimants' favour) and, in doing so, to refer to an exchange of letters marked "without prejudice" (but not, crucially, "without prejudice save as to costs"). It was suggested that these letters demonstrated a "certain attitude of mind on the part of the Claimants" towards settlement negotiations. The judge, Ian Purvis QC, doubted the relevance of the correspondence, given that it was already clear from the evidence that the claimants had never made any admissible offers and had not responded to Part 36 offers (which they went on to beat). However, the defendants did not question the relevance, but only the admissibility, of the letters.

Despite earlier caselaw to the contrary, the judge noted that it is now established that "without prejudice" negotiations are not generally admissible on the question of costs (as well as not being admissible on questions of liability). The defendants raised two arguments though:

(1) The privilege only applies to communications which are genuinely aimed at settlement and the claimants here had not made any genuine attempt to settle. That argument was rejected by the judge: "Once a party has made a without prejudice offer, the recipient of the offer is plainly free to make a without prejudice response" which "may be simply to reject the offer outright. He may even choose to ignore the offer completely. All those responses are protected by privilege".

Nor could it be said that the initial "without prejudice" offer was not in fact subject to joint privilege at all, but rather to a unilateral privilege belonging to the writer of the letter. There was no authority to support that argument and, furthermore, it would mean that a failure to reply would never be protected because the writer of the first offer would be able to waive his privilege.

(2) Nor could it be argued that the claimants had impliedly waived privilege by making a claim to indemnity costs, since that claim was based on the defendants', and not the claimants', conduct in the litigation. The position would be different, though, had the claimants been seeking to rely on some aspect of the defendants' conduct in the without prejudice discussions.

Barnett v Creggy

Limitation defence and acknowledging a debt/ appropriate rate of interest on a judgment in US dollars

Section 29(5) of the Limitation Act 1980 provides that where there is a right to recover "any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim", and the liable person acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it, time will start running only from the date of acknowledgment or payment. There is no particular format for an acknowledgment, other than it should be in writing and signed. One of the issues in this case was whether a debt had been acknowledged when the "debtor" signed a letter effectively undertaking to acknowledge a debt should funds not be paid by a third party. Richards J held that a debt could only be acknowledged if it already existed and so the letter had "necessarily acknowledged" the creditor's claim.

A further issue discussed in the case was the appropriate rate of interest for a judgment debt in dollars (none of the parties or the underlying transactions having had any connection with the United States). Noting that the general approach of the courts is that the rate should be the rate at which the recipient could have borrowed the funds of which he has been deprived, Richards J identified three potential rates:

(1) US Prime Rate – a benchmark based on what US banks charge their best customers;

(2) Federal Funds Rate – the rate at which US banks borrow from each other on an overnight basis (this applies only to US banks);

(3) LIBOR – the rate at which banks lend to each other on an international basis (hence an international interest rate benchmark, fixed in London).

Although LIBOR and Federal Fund Rates tend to be very similar, US Prime Rate runs at 2.5-3% above those rates.

Citing recent caselaw (eg Fiona Trust v Privalov (see Weekly Update 12/11)), the judge concluded that the appropriate rate would be USD LIBOR plus 3% in this case: "Neither US Prime Rate nor Federal Funds Rate has any obvious application to parties and transactions which are unconnected with the United States. In view of the long period involved in this case, I consider that six-month LIBOR, rather than three-month LIBOR, should be adopted as the base rate".

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Bank v Pugachev

Reliance on hearsay evidence in a freezing order application and proving the risk of dissipation

The respondent sought the discharge of a freezing order against him. Various issues were considered in the case, including the following:

(1) Can hearsay evidence be relied on when applying for a freezing order if the source is not identified? PD 32 provides that an affidavit must indicate "the source for any matters of information or belief". The respondent argued that it is unacceptable to base an application for a freezing order on evidence which does not conform to the requirements for identifying sources (ie without an identified source, the affidavit by the claimant's solicitor should be given less weight). Here, the claimant's solicitor had indicated that his affidavit was prepared following discussions with a number of people (and he had provided the names of some of those people).

Mann J held that once information has been disclosed, privilege no longer exists and so there can be nothing objectionable in a solicitor identifying the source of what is now non-privileged information: "If [a litigant] wishes to rely on this information, then the price is that the source is no longer privileged". However, the judge went on to find that it would have made no difference to the respondent's case had he known precisely which individual from the group had held a particular belief.

(2) Is the risk of dissipation proven if the respondent uses corporate structures and offshore companies? Mann J agreed that the mere holding of assets in offshore structures would not be enough in itself. However, in some cases the quality and nature of the arrangements may be a "pointer" towards a risk of dissipation. Here, there was evidence (albeit not conclusive evidence) that elaborate structures had been set up in order to shield assets from view. Looking at the available material as a whole, the judge found that the risk of dissipation had been proven.

COMMENT: Although a risk of dissipation was established on the facts here, this case continues the line of authority that the use of offshore companies alone will not suffice in itself. For example, in VTB Capital v Nutritek (Weekly Update 43/11), the fact that the defendant operated a "complex web of companies in a number of jurisdictions" did not suffice, with the judge saying: "It is not uncommon for international businessmen, and indeed quoted UK companies, to use offshore vehicles for their operations, particularly for tax reasons. This may make it difficult to enforce a judgment. But in that respect claimants ....have to take defendants they find them." Similarly, in UL v BK (Weekly Update 25/13), Mostyn J commented that holding assets in off-shore structures will not of itself amount to an unjustified dealing of assets and Morgan J also agreed in Sukhoruchkin & Ors v Van Bestein & Ors (Weekly Update 26/13) that it was a "less powerful" argument that the defendants had created an "elaborate and sophisticated structure" using off-shore companies and nominee shareholdings.

Public Joint Stock Company v Maksimov

Court disapproves of contempt of court application following breach of a freezing order Comm/2014/4370.html&query=vseukrainskyi&method=Boolean

The claimant applied to commit the defendant to prison for contempt of court in breaching earlier worldwide freezing orders. Hamblen J rejected all the alleged grounds of contempt (bar one "technical" contempt ie where the claimant had had disclosure of the assets in question but there had not been any separate asset disclosure statement). The total costs for both sides were in excess of GBP 1 million. Hamblen decided in this case to order the claimant to pay 80% of the defendant's costs.

The judge said that the claimant could have pursued various options in place of an "immediate" application to commit for contempt when it believed the defendant had failed to comply with the asset disclosure requirement of the order. For example, It could have raised any queries in inter-solicitor correspondence or it could have applied for permission to cross-examine the defendant. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the claimant had been prejudiced by the defendant's actions or that "meaningful assets" had been concealed.

Referring to the decision in Sectorguard v Dienne plc [2009], he approved the comments there that the court should be astute to the use of committal proceedings for non-legitimate ends (ie not to enforce compliance with court orders). Applications which have no real prospect of success or relate to only technical, or involuntary. contempt should properly be regarded as an abuse of process. Hamblen J said:" An increasing amount of this court's time is being taken up with contempt applications. Claimants should give careful consideration to proportionality in relation to the bringing and continuance of such proceedings. In appropriate cases respondents should give consideration to applying to strike out such applications for abuse of process. The court should be astute to detect when contempt proceedings are not being pursued for legitimate aims. Adverse costs orders may follow where claimants bring disproportionate contempt applications".

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
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (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

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’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.


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.


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 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.


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.


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.


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.


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

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

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

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