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
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