UK: Insurance And Reinsurance Weekly Update - 10 March 2015

Last Updated: 18 March 2015
Article by Nigel Brook

Welcome to the ninth 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:

This week's caselaw

Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish Limited
Clyde & Co wins a Supreme Court case which determined the scope of the common design principle.

Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management
The Court of Appeal determines how to calculate the basic hire rate under a credit hire agreement for a replacement car.

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Bank v Pugachev
The Court of Appeal orders disclosure in relation to a freezing order and considers a cross-undertaking from a liquidator.

Davis Solicitors v Raja
A decision on the need to file an appeal bundle, even though a trial bundle contained the same documents.

Other news

Our employment team summarises a consultation paper on new whistleblowing rules.

New court fees come into effect.

Sea Shepherd UK v Fish & Fish Limited

Supreme Court finds that parties were not joint tortfeasors

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/10.html

Clyde & Co (Michelle Crorie, Erina Kawai and Wynne Lawrence) for the winning appellant. Summary kindly supplied by Wynne Lawrence.

In June 2010, Fish & Fish Limited, a fish farm operator based in Malta, was transporting live Bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean Sea. On 17 June 2010 divers from the vessel "STEVE IRWIN" entered the water and cut cages containing the tuna as part of a campaign known as Operation Blue Rage. The tuna escaped. Sea Shepherd UK ("SSUK") and two US-based defendants - Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ("SSCS") and Mr Paul Watson - were sued for the value of the tuna. Jurisdiction against all Defendants was sought based upon SSUK's alleged involvement.

There was a trial of a preliminary issue as to whether SSUK was liable for the acts of those involved in the incident on the basis of Paul Watson's role as both Master of the vessel at the relevant time and also director of SSUK, SSUK's legal ownership of the vessel involved and being joint tortfeasors pursuant to the doctrine of common design. At first instance, Hamblen J rejected all such arguments, accepting that Paul Watson was operating at all times on behalf of SSCS, that SSCS was the beneficial owner of the vessel and did not require SSUK's authority to use the vessel, and that the steps taken by SSUK in support of the campaign were minimal such that it was not liable under the doctrine of common design. The Court of Appeal reversed this judgment in part, holding that SSUK merely needed to take some steps pursuant to a common design and that this test had been met resulting in liability on the part of SSUK. The Court of Appeal overturned both the legal findings and also, in part, the factual findings of the Judge in this regard. The question of whether SSUK was liable on the basis of common design was the subject of the appeal to the Supreme Court.

In a majority of 3:2, the Supreme Court has now found that SSUK was not liable as joint tortfeasor.

All five justices agreed on the test for liability in tort by common design, resolving the ambiguity created in the Court of Appeal. Lord Toulson's leading judgment reasoned that a defendant will be jointly liable for the tortious acts of the principal if the defendant (i) acts in a way which furthers the commission of the tort by the principal to a level that is greater than de minimis; and (ii) does so in pursuance of a common design to do, or secure the doing of, the acts which constitute the tort. The judges disagreed as to the application of the facts to the case, but the majority found that Hamblen J's findings of fact were not so unreasonable as to be capable of being overturned by an appellant court and the acts of SSUK in furtherance of a common design (accepting GBP 1,730 in donations and sending two volunteers to work on the vessel) were de minimis.

Stevens v Equity Syndicate Management

Court of Appeal determines how to calculate the basic hire rate under credit hire agreement for a replacement car

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/93.html

The claimant's car was damaged by a negligent driver insured by the defendant. The claimant's insurers put him in touch with a credit hire company which hired him a replacement car and carried out the repairs on his own car. The issue in this case was the extent to which the credit hire charge incurred by the claimant is recoverable from the defendant.

This is an issue which the courts have tackled in a number of recent cases. Those earlier cases have established the following principles: (1) An innocent party must mitigate his loss eg by hiring a replacement vehicle; (2) He will be able to recover the cost of a replacement vehicle as damages; (3) In general, he can recover the cost or hiring the replacement vehicle on credit hire terms; (4) However, if his financial circumstances are such that he did not need to use credit, his damages will be only the basic hire rate of the vehicle; (5) If he is impecunious though, he will be able to recover the whole of the credit hire rate (provided it was a reasonable rate to pay in all the circumstances).

In this case, the claimant could have afforded to hire a replacement car without the need to use credit. The issue was therefore how to calculate the basic hire rate. That can be a difficult exercise for the courts because credit hire companies routinely provide additional services (such as conducting a claim on the injured party's behalf) which are irrecoverable as costs but difficult to quantify. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the lowest reasonable rate quoted by a mainstream supplier for the hire of a vehicle of the kind actually hired by the claimant to a person such as the claimant will be a reasonable approximation of the basic hire rate: "It follows that a judge faced with a range of hire rates should try to identify the rate or rates for the hire, in the claimant's geographical area, of the type of car actually hired by the claimant on credit hire terms. If that exercise yields a single rate then that rate is likely to be a reasonable approximation for the BHR [basic hire rate]. If, on the other hand, it yields a range of rates then a reasonable estimate of the BHR may be obtained by identifying the lowest reasonable rate quoted by a mainstream supplier or, if there is no mainstream supplier, by a local reputable supplier".

JSC Mezhdunarodniy Bank v Pugachev

Court of Appeal orders disclosure in relation to freezing order and cross-undertaking from a liquidator

A liquidator of a bank obtained a freezing order against the Russian defendant, in aid of Russian proceedings. One of the assets frozen by the order was "any interest under any trust, including any interest which may arise by virtue of the exercise of any...discretion or otherwise". The defendant was subsequently ordered to disclose information about a discretionary trust in respect of which he was a member of a class of beneficiaries. He appealed against that order, arguing that the trust's assets were not his assets. The Court of Appeal has now held that the judge did have a discretion to make this order, since the freezing order was worded widely enough to encompass the defendant's interest in the trust. Having disclosed his interest in the trusts, should the defendant also be compelled to disclose details of the trust assets themselves?

The Court of Appeal held that he should. The jurisdiction to make a freezing order also allows a court to make ancillary orders which are necessary to make the order effective. The threshold test for ordering a defendant to provide information about assets which are, or may be, the subject of the freezing order is not the same as the threshold test for freezing assets: "An order for the provision of information is far less intrusive than an order which prevents someone from dealing with assets". Furthermore, information was only being sought from the defendant, and not a third party.

A further point in the case was whether the judge was wrong to order the bank's liquidator to provide an unlimited cross-undertaking. It had been argued that there is an exception to the requirement to give an unlimited cross-undertaking where the applicant for the freezing order has no personal interest in the litigation and is bringing the action on behalf of others. Lewison LJ said that "I do not consider that the mere fact that litigation is being brought by a liquidator of an insolvent company compels the conclusion that the cross-undertaking must be capped". Although judges do have a discretion to accept limited cross-undertakings, the judge in this case had been entitled to require an unlimited cross-undertaking and so the appeal against that decision was also dismissed.

COMMENT: The decision that an unlimited cross-undertaking can be required from a liquidator can be contrasted with the position established by the Supreme Court in FSA v Sinaloa Gold (see Weekly Update 08/13) that an unlimited crossundertaking cannot be required from law enforcement agencies enforcing the law in the public interest.

Davis Solicitors v Raja

Need to file an appeal bundle, even though a trial bundle contained the same documents

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/519.html

PD52B paras 6.3 and 6.4 provide that an appellant must file an appeal bundle (containing the documents listed in that direction) within 35 days after the filing of the appellant's notice. In this case, an unless order was also made by the court. However, the appellant's solicitors failed to comply, and argued that the court already had the relevant documents because the appeal bundle would have consisted of the papers which had already been included in the trial bundles. The appeal was struck out (the judge pointing out that an appeal bundle is required "to enable the court to pick up the case without having to rummage through the file and find individual documents"). The appellant sought relief from sanctions and that was refused.

An appeal against that decision has now been dismissed. Applying the principles established in Denton v TH White (Weekly Update 26/14), Supperstone J held that the breach was serious and significant and the appellant did not have a good reason for the default. The purpose of PD52B is "to assist the orderly conduct of appeals throughout the appeals process". The judge was also entitled to have regard to the merits of the appeal itself when considering "all the circumstances of the case". Other News

Other News

Our Employment Team summarises a consultation paper on newwhistleblowing rules

Our employment team have produced a summary of a FCA and PRA consultation paper on how they propose whistleblowing issues are going to be handled in future - a mix of legal/HR and compliance issues. It is going to make some very important and wide-reaching changes, including that an independent non-executive director will have to be appointed as a "whistleblowers' champion" and will have overall responsibility and specific regulatory accountability to ensure those making disclosures are not mistreated and will have to produce an annual report to the board.

Other headline changes include:

  • Making mandatory changes to employment contracts and settlement agreements
  • Widening the scope of what constitutes whistleblowing
  • Expanding the scope of those who will receive protection (via regulatory action if not covered under the existing legal framework)
  • Advising employees they can approach the regulators direct and how to do so
  • Mandatory reporting to the regulators if a whistleblowing case is lost
  • Measures put in place for anonymous reporting
  • A possible obligation on employees to report wrongdoing

Here is a link to the summary. Please contact Nick Elwell- Sutton for further information.

New court fees come into effect

Court fees increased significantly on 9th March 2015. Broadly, there is now a 5% fee for all claims valued over GBP 10,000, subject to a cap of GBP 10,000 for claims worth more than GBP 200,000

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.