UK: (Re)insurance Weekly Update 3 - 2016

Last Updated: 26 January 2016
Article by Nigel Brook

A summary of recent developments in insurance, reinsurance and litigation law

This Week's Caselaw

Anzen Ltd v Hermes One: Privy Council considers the effect of a clause which provides that the parties "may" arbitrate

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2016/1.html

The parties entered into an agreement (governed by English law) which provided that: "If a dispute arises...and the dispute cannot be settled within 20 business days through negotiation, any Party may submit the dispute to binding arbitration" (emphasis added). The clause then went on to specify various issues connected to the arbitration eg venue and language.

Following a dispute, the respondent commenced court proceedings in the BVI. The appellants did not start arbitral proceedings. Instead, they sought a stay of the court proceedings (relying on a statutory provision which is similar to that of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which provides, broadly, that a party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings are brought may apply to the court to stay the proceedings). A stay was rejected at first instance and on appeal (on the ground that no arbitration of an identical subject matter had been commenced by the appellant) but the Privy Council has now allowed the appeal.

In reaching its decision, the Privy Council considered 3 possible analyses of the arbitration agreement:

(a) the parties must arbitrate if they wish to pursue the dispute ("analysis I");
(b) one party may commence litigation if it wishes, but the other party has the option of arbitrating if:
it commences an arbitration ("analysis II"); or
(c) it requires the other party to submit to arbitration by making an unequivocal request to that effect and/or applying for a stay ("analysis III").

The Privy Council found many significant pointers against analysis I. Clauses depriving a party of a right to litigate should be clearly worded and there was an obvious linguistic difference between "may" and "shall". The Privy Council rejected the argument, though, that the litigation proceedings had not been properly begun.

If analysis II is adopted, the Board said that it would lead to "evident incongruity", in that the litigation can only be ended by a party actually commencing an arbitration in which the only claim they might be able to make is for a declaration of non-liability in respect of any claim being brought in the litigation. It was said that that would make no commercial sense.

Accordingly, the Privy Council favoured analysis III. The clause contemplated a consensual approach and the view that notice by the appellants triggered a mutual agreement to arbitrate fitted that approach.  As a result, the litigation proceedings had been properly begun but they should now be stayed, once the appellants invoked arbitration. However, the appellants did not have to actually commence arbitration themselves in order to obtain a stay of the litigation. Thus the party which started the litigation will be forced to commence the arbitration (whilst paying the requisite fee) if the other side doesn't and if it wishes to pursue its claim.

In reaching its decision, the Privy Council referred to earlier decisions that a clause which entitles either party to elect arbitration (but provides for litigation otherwise) is a valid arbitration agreement once the option is exercised by starting arbitration. However, the Board has gone further in this case by confirming that merely applying for a stay or invoking arbitration (without actually commencing arbitration) is also enough to make the arbitration agreement binding.

COMMENT: Although analysis III has the result that the party commencing litigation has not done anything wrong, the effective result is that a party wishing to arbitrate can obtain a stay of the litigation proceedings, thus producing the same practical result as for analysis I. This result could be said to make commercial sense, in that the undesirable situation of parallel decisions from a court and a tribunal will be avoided. However, the party which legitimately started litigation here will no doubt be aggrieved that it will now be put to the expense and hassle of starting an arbitration in order to pursue its case. The party which didn't want to litigate waited only a month here before applying for a stay. Had it decided instead to let the litigation continue for some time (perhaps in order to assess its likely chances of success before the court) before finally invoking its option of arbitrating, the scope for potential unfairness would be great (the court having no option to refuse a stay, unless the arbitration agreement is null and void).

Suh v Mace (UK) Ltd: Whether without prejudice privilege could be claimed and, if so, whether it had been waived

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/4.html

The "without prejudice" rule excludes from evidence all negotiations genuinely aimed at settlement. The court must consider the circumstances of the communications from an objective standpoint.

In this case, the appellant allegedly made certain admission during a meeting with the other side's solicitors (which the appellant said was held in order to discuss the case and its progress). At first instance, it was held that the meeting had not been a without prejudice meeting. That finding has now been reversed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal held that "a broader view is now authoritatively required" when deciding the nature of discussions which have taken place. Taking into account that it can be harder to determine this question where a litigant in person is involved, Vos LJ went on to state that "I am influenced here by asking what else could it be said the discussions were about?" The appellant had not attended in order to obtain legal advice and "the only sensible purpose for such a meeting must have been to seek some kind of solution to the litigation" for the appellant: "That is what a settlement is, and what both parties here must objectively be regarded as having genuinely been seeking. There is no justification for salami slicing the interviews into parts that were open and parts that were without prejudice. Such an approach would contravene the broad view required by the authorities which I have described". Accordingly, the entire meeting was covered by the privilege.

Nor could it be said that exclusion of the evidence would act as a cloak for impropriety. The appellant had done nothing even arguably dishonest in the course of the meeting and so this was not a case like that mentioned in an earlier decision, where the person seeking to claim the privilege had threatened the other side, during the relevant discussions, that he would give perjured evidence unless the settlement was agreed.

The Court of Appeal went on to find that there had also been no waiver of the privilege.

The test of waiver of without prejudice privilege differs from that for legal professional privilege, in that the waiver must be made by both parties. The Court of Appeal said that this calls for an objective evaluation in the context of the purpose of the without prejudice privilege. Would it be unjust for the appellant to argue that admissions made in the meeting were privileged? The Court of Appeal found that, in the circumstances it would not: "It would hardly protect the privilege and its overarching purpose if the party seeking to overcome it could secure its waiver by forcing the opposing party to respond to an application it was making to the court".

COMMENT: The Court of Appeal's broad view approach seems to lead to the result that, where two disputing parties agree to meet, the onus will fall on the party denying that without prejudice privilege applies to demonstrate that the purpose of that meeting was not to reach some kind of solution. The comment about not dividing the meeting into WP and non-WP parts is also of interest. In Passmore on Privilege, 3rd edn, it is commented that "meetings often switch in and out of the without prejudice mode", but the Court of Appeal seems to be of the view that that an overall view of the nature and purpose of a meeting is generally a better approach.

In the Matter of Rothesay Assurance Ltd: Whether concerns about excess capital levels should prevent approval of a scheme

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2016/44.html&query=rothesay&method=boolean

An application was made to court for approval of an insurance business transfer scheme. A representative policyholder of the transferor raised concerns regarding the effect of the proposed transfer. Although accepting that the policyholders had no right to any particular level of excess assets, he pointed out that their first call on the excess capital (whatever that level might be) would be lost and that the transferor's policyholders would rank equally with the far more numerous existing policyholders of the transferee and so the level of assets per policyholder would be greatly reduced.

Henderson J held that the court should give its approval to the transfer. There was no principled basis for assessing what is the "right" level of excess capital for the transferor to hold. That level is liable to fluctuate and is not set at any specific amount because it exceeded the mandatory regulatory requirements. Instead, the critical question is whether the scheme poses a material risk to the solvency of the transferee and thus the security of the transferring policyholders. The independent expert (and the regulators) had found that the transferee would remain in a strong capital position, both before and after the introduction of Solvency II. The judge said he had no reason to challenge that conclusion.

Crooks v Hendricks Lovell: Assessing whether a Part 36 offer has been beaten where benefits are recoverable

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/8.html

Under a statutory scheme, a defendant to a personal injury claim (broadly) pays reduced damages to the claimant and then refunds "recoverable benefits" to the state ("recoverable benefits" include social security benefits paid in respect of injuries sustained in an accident at work). When making a Part 36 offer, the defendant can therefore choose whether to make the offer "without regard to any liability for recoverable amounts" or state that the offer "is intended to include any deductible amounts".

In this case, the defendant offered £18,500 "net of CRU" (ie net of recoverable benefits due to the Compensation Recovery Unit). After judgment was given (in the sum of £29,550), the recorder adjourned his consideration of costs until after the outcome of a review by the CRU of the certificate of recovery benefits which it had issued prior to judgment. After the revised certificate was issued, it was held that the claimant had failed to beat the defendant's Part 36 offer. The claimant appealed and the Court of Appeal has now held as follows:

  1. This had been a valid Part 36 offer. As it was intended to be made "without regard to any liability for recoverable amounts", the defendant did not have to state the amount of gross compensation which the claimant would receive.
  2. "Net of CRU" meant that the amount of the offer had to be compared with the judgment sum after any corresponding adjustments for recoverable benefit have been made.
  3. The recorder had been correct to wait until the CRU's review before deciding whether the Part 36 offer had been beaten. It is not always necessary to compare the offer with the award made on the day of judgment. Sometimes, as here, the judge cannot decide costs straight away.
  4. The Part 36 offer had been beaten by the claimant. When determining whether or not an offer had been beaten "one had to look at the net sum paid to the claimant, not the gross sum including monies payable to the CRU" (ie not the total amount which the defendant had to pay). Once the sum owed to the CRU had been calculated, the claimant received £22,789 as the amount that was net of recoverable benefit, and so had beaten the offer.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

(Re)insurance Weekly Update 3 - 2016

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