UK: (Re)Insurance Weekly Update 11 - 2015

Last Updated: 1 April 2015
Article by Nigel Brook

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

This Week's Caselaw

Braganza v BP Shipping

The Supreme Court decides the test for insurers/parties who have a contractual power to form an opinion

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2015/17.html

The claimant is the widow of an engineer who disappeared from the defendant's oil tanker when it was in the middle of the North Atlantic. His contract of employment with the defendant provided that: "For the avoidance of doubt, compensation for death...shall not be payable if, in the opinion of the Company or its insurers, the death...resulted from...the Officer's wilful act..." (emphasis added). The defendant formed the opinion that the most likely explanation for the employee's disappearance was that he had committed suicide by throwing himself overboard. The issue in this case was whether the defendant had been entitled to form that opinion and what the test to be applied by the court in deciding that question should be. At first instance, Teare J held that the evidence was not sufficiently cogent to warrant a finding of suicide on the balance of probabilities and so the defendant's opinion had been unreasonable (it having been common ground between the parties that the opinion formed by the defendant had to be reasonable). The appeal from Teare J's decision was allowed and so the claimant appealed to the Supreme Court.

It has now allowed that appeal by a majority of 3:2.

The general issue was what it means to say that the decision of a contractual fact-finder must be a reasonable one. The Supreme Court considered whether courts should adopt the same standard of review as that adopted for judicial reviews of administrative action, or whether it should be less demanding. The claimant argued that the defendant should have taken the right matters into account whereas the defendant argued that its decision could only be impugned if its decision was one which no reasonable employer could have reached (the claimant agreed that that was also part of the test). The majority of the Supreme Court found in favour of the claimant: "If it is part of a rational decision-making process to exclude extraneous considerations, it is in my view also part of a rational decision-making process to take into account those considerations which are obviously relevant to the decision in question. It is of the essence of "Wednesbury reasonableness" (or "GCHQ rationality") review to consider the rationality of the decision-making process rather than to concentrate upon the outcome. Concentrating on the outcome runs the risk that the court will substitute its own decision for that of the primary decision-maker" (as per Lady Hale).

Turning to the particular contract in issue here, it was held that a decision that an employee had committed suicide was not a rational or reasonable decision unless the employer had had it clearly in mind that suicide is such an improbability that cogent evidence is required to form the positive opinion that it has taken place. Applying that test to this case, it was found that there had not been such sufficiently cogent evidence.

COMMENT: Although this case concerned the decision of an employer, the principles will be equally applicable to decisions made by insurers where the policy gives them a power to form an opinion. The more unlikely a certain conclusion is generally (as Lady Hale noted, "some things are inherently a great deal less likely than others"), the stronger the evidence will be needed to support the insurer's opinion.

Bianco v Bennett

A case on whether an Italian insurer could bring a subrogated claim against an English defendant in England

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/626.html

The claimant is the widow of an Italian killed by an English driver in England. Liability was admitted and the claimant claimed on her own behalf under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976 ("FAA") (and as administratrix of her husband's estate under the Law Reform Act 1934).

The widow had received a payment from an Italian insurer and her husband's Italian employer. Under Italian law, the insurer and employer were entitled to recover these payments from a tortfeasor (and it was a term of the insurance policy that the widow was required to bring the claim). The widow sought to bring this subrogated claim against the English defendant (as she was required to do so under her insurance policy). The issue was therefore whether this claim was recoverable in the English proceedings.

Warby J was critical of the fact the claim had not originally been pleaded. In any event, there was no head of loss under the FAA which was apt to include the subrogated claim. It was accepted that the assessment of damages was governed by English law. Nevertheless, the claimant sought to rely on Article 85 of EC Regulation 883/2004 on the co-ordination of social security systems. Article 85 provides, broadly, that Member States must recognise subrogation rights which are provided by other Member States. However, the judge held that an obligation to recognise such rights did not extend to an obligation on the English court to recognise a substantive claim which could be advanced under Italian law, but was not permitted under English law. English law was the only basis on which the claimant could advance her claim and since the receipt by the claimant of any sums paid by her late husband's insurer and/or employer are disregarded in the assessment of her claim as irrelevant, the subrogated claim could not be maintained.

Dalton v BT Plc

A decision on the meaning of "disease" in CPR r45 – of possible interest to employers' liability insurers

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2015/616.html

Although the rules changed on 1 April 2013, success fees are still recoverable where a CFA was entered into before that date. Under the old CPR r45, where a claim is for a "disease", a success fee of 62.5% will be recoverable if the claim settles before trial. If it is not a disease, it will be classified as an injury and (if sustained on or after 1 October 2004), it will attract a success fee of only 25%. The issue in this case was whether noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) is a disease or an injury.

The defendant sought to rely on the earlier decision of Patterson v MoD (see Weekly Update 37/12). There, it was held that, applying the "natural and ordinary meaning" of the word, non-freezing cold injury (NFCI) was not a disease. However, Phillips J held that, taking into account legislative history, there is a strong indication that Parliament intended "disease" in CPR r45 to "include any illness (whether physical or physiological), disorder, ailment, affliction, complaint, malady or derangement other than a physical or physiological injury solely caused by an accident or other similar single event". Noting that his conclusion differed from that of Males J in Patterson, the judge added: "but it does not appear that the lengthy legislative history, nor its relationship with the current Pre-Action Protocol, was drawn to his attention". Nevertheless, there are now two conflicting High Court decisions on the definition of disease in CPR r45.

The judge went on to say that even if he was wrong about the meaning of "disease", "it is nevertheless entirely clear, in my judgment, that the term (however it is defined) must be taken to include NIHL". That was because of the legislative history relating to NIHL as well as the fact that "NIHL is not merely an occupational disease but is the paradigm case of such a disease". Reference was also made to a report by the Civil Justice Council which recorded an "industry" agreement in 2005 that success fees for NIHL would be 62.5%.

Y v S

A case on whether an arbitration award should be enforced pending a challenge

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2015/612.html

The applicant obtained an award in its favour. The respondent had argued that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the dispute. It therefore issued an arbitration claim purporting to challenge jurisdiction under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and sought a stay of enforcement of the award pending that challenge. An order to that effect was made and subsequently modified to allow enforcement abroad. The respondent then sought to discharge that order and applied for leave under section 66 of the Act to enforce the award.

Applications to enforce awards are usually made under CPR r62. Eder J noted that the order made in this case had "tracked" CPR r62 by ordering that no steps be taken to enforce the award pending the challenge. In a CPR r62 application, that wording would not extend to enforcement overseas. However, the order in this case had, on the face of it, been unrestricted.

The parties agreed to a modification of the order. The issue then became whether the order should have been made at all. The judge held that it had been unnecessary and inappropriate to grant the order. There had been no evidence that there had been assets here. Furthermore, there had been no real risk of the respondent seeking to enforce the award - if he had done so, the court would have granted only an interim order, pending the final disposal of the challenge. The court went on to reject the application for a final order to enforce the award.

There was also nothing in CPR r62.18 which contemplates that a temporary prohibition against enforcement may be made subject to an order for the provision of security. Instead, "it seems to me that any application for an order requiring provision of security for the amount of dispute must be made in the context of a discrete application under ss67, 68 or 69 supported by adequate evidence pursuant to that statutory provision", because section 70(7) of the Act (which provides that: "The court may order that any money payable under the award shall be brought into court or otherwise secured pending the determination of the application or appeal") only applies to sections 67-69.

Deutsche Bank v Petromena

The Court of Appeal considers the correct test for "submission to the jurisdiction

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/226.html

When the claimant served its claim form on the defendant (a Norwegian company), the defendant filed an acknowledgment of service contesting the jurisdiction of the English court. The English court rejected the application for an order declaring that it did not have jurisdiction and also refused permission to appeal. An order was made permitting (but not requiring) the defendant to file a further acknowledgment of service (as permitted by CPR r11(7), which also provides that the first acknowledgment of service ceases to have effect if the court does not declare that it does not have jurisdiction). The defendant did file a second acknowledgment of service, only ticking the box indicating that it intended to defend the whole claim. The defendant subsequently obtained permission to appeal from the Court of Appeal. The claimant argued that the defendant had submitted to the jurisdiction of the English court by filing the second acknowledgment of service.

Article 24 of the Lugano Convention provides that "a court of a State bound by this Convention before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction". The meaning of "enters an appearance" is to be determined by national procedural law. In the combined cases of Sage v Double A Hydraulics and Chambers v Morgan Starkings [1992], the Supreme Court adopted a "disinterested bystander" test, but this was not applied in the subsequent case of Hoddinott v Persimmon Homes (see Weekly Update 45/07). There it was held that an application to set aside an order extending time for service of the claim form was to be treated as having been abandoned where the defendant filed an acknowledgment and failed to apply to challenge jurisdiction in time. In this case, the Court of Appeal held that Hoddinott did not apply only to first, and not subsequent, acknowledgments of service. It held the disinterested bystander test had no application to a "statutory submission to the jurisdiction". Furthermore, the language of CPR r11(8) (which provides that if the defendant files a further acknowledgment of service he shall be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim) was clear.

The correct step for the defendant in this case would have been to apply for a stay or an extension of time to file the acknowledgment of service in order continue its challenge (and not to file a further acknowledgment of service).

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.