UK: (Re)insurance Weekly Update 6 - 2016

Last Updated: 19 February 2016
Article by Nigel Brook

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

This week's caselaw:

PM Law v Motorplus Limited & Ors: Whether solicitors entitled to bring a claim against BTE/ATE insurers and intermediary

The defendant, an insurance intermediary, sought to strike out the claim against it. The defendant had arrangements with a firm of solicitors to refer people with potential civil claims to these solicitors in return for a referral payment. The defendant, acting as the agent of various insurers, would arrange and administer BTE and ATE insurance policies which were put in place in order to cover the solicitors' clients for their liability for the solicitors' costs plus any adverse costs and disbursements. Following the late payment of referral fees and premiums, the defendant stopped making referrals. The solicitors subsequently commenced proceedings, seeking to recover (from both the defendant and insurers) sums which it alleged were payable under the insurance policies issued in favour of their clients.

Picken J has now struck out that claim, describing it as "unwinnable", for the following reasons:

  1. The solicitors could not rely on the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The policies expressly excluded the operation of that Act but, in any event, they did not provide for the solicitors to enforce their terms and nor did they purport to confer a benefit on the solicitors. The purpose of the policies was to benefit the solicitors' client and not other parties (such as the solicitors, the client's opponent in the litigation, or those to whom disbursements are payable) to whom the client has a relevant liability. It was not sufficient to show that the solicitors would incidentally derive a benefit from the policy.
  2. The solicitors did not have title to sue in their own name as they were not the insured under the policies. This position was also spelt out in the solicitors' client care information pack. Where it was stated that the solicitors "will claim disbursements on your insurance policy", this simply meant that a claim would be presented on the client's behalf. Any action would have to be brought in the name of the client. Furthermore, although a solicitor will often, as a matter of practicality, pay disbursements to third parties, such as experts, on their clients' behalf, this does not mean that the solicitors have any legal liability to do so, and so there is no such liability to be covered under the policies.
  3. There was no implied term in the policies entitling the solicitors to sue in their own name. There was no necessity to imply such a term and the judge's finding on this point was supported by the decision of Cooke J in Greene Wood McLean v Templeton (see Weekly Update 40/10).
  4. It was also hopeless to argue that the defendant was liable under the policies. The defendant was not an insurer, it was just an agent which marketed the policies. Prior caselaw makes it clear that "the fact that an insurance agent administers policies and commonly pays claims does not make it personally and directly liable to make payments under policies".
  5. The decision in Greene Wood (see above) did not assist the solicitors in this case. In Greene Wood, Cooke J had found that solicitors were able to bring a claim against ATE insurers because they had given a guarantee to their clients of "no risk, no cost" (ie that the solicitors themselves would pay if the insurers did not – but the primary liability rested with the insurers). However, no such guarantee had been given in this case. Nor was there any other contractual commitment that the solicitors would pay disbursements. The judge added that Greene Wood was "an exceptional case".

Dubai Financial Group v National Private Air Transport: Court of Appeal considers whether court can order retrospective valid service and default judgment at the same time

CPR r6.15(2) provides that the court can order that steps already taken to bring the claim form to the attention of the defendant by an alternative method amounts to good service. In this case, after attempts to serve via diplomatic channels proved ineffective, the defendant was served at its premises in Saudi Arabia, and a legal adviser signed for the documents. This was not a method prohibited under Saudi law. No response pack was served with the claim form.

When no acknowledgment of service was received, the claimant applied to court and obtained a declaration under CPR r6.15 that the defendant had been validly served. At the same time, the judge ordered that judgment in default be entered. Flaux J subsequently refused to set aside that default judgment and a further appeal was made to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal has now allowed that appeal. The unanimous ground for allowing the appeal was that the defendant did have an arguable defence, and so default judgment should not have been entered for that reason. However, there was disagreement about whether or not a default judgment could be given at the same time as the order retrospectively validating service.

McCombe LJ and Treacy LJ agreed that the defendant was under no obligation to take any steps until the order validating service had been made. CPR r6.15(4)(c) provides that the order validating service "must" specify the period for filing an acknowledgment of service. CPR r12.3 further provides that default judgment may be obtained only if the relevant time for filing the acknowledgment for service has expired and it was held that the relevant time was the time specified in the order: "Where, as in this case, the court did not specify any such time there can be no relevant time which has expired for the purposes of CPR 12.3(1). If this analysis is correct the requirements of CPR 12.3(1)(b) have not been satisfied and so the court is obliged to set aside the default judgment". The lack of a response pack should also have been taken into account when the judge exercised his discretion.

Longmore LJ disagreed with this view though. He held that, since no sanction was provided for under CPR r6.15(4)(c), the default judgment should not be set aside "as of right" where no time for filing the acknowledgment of service was given. He also disputed that there was an absolute bar to ordering default judgment and retrospective service at the same time. He further found that the absence of a response pack was not a good reason for the court exercising its discretion to set aside the default judgment: the defendant here had clearly known about the claim and was already in contact with his legal advisers about it.

Jockey Club Racecourse v Willmott Dixon: Whether Part 36 offer was a genuine attempt to settle

The claimant beat its Part 36 offer in this case, but the defendant argued that it would be unjust to order the normal costs consequences because the offer was not a "genuine attempt to settle the proceedings". This is a new requirement added to the rules in April 2015, but there is also caselaw pre-dating that rule change in which a Part 36 offer has been held not to be valid because the offeror was not making a real concession.

In this case, the claimant offered to accept 95% of the damages which it was claiming (those damages were alleged to be £400,000 at the time of the offer, although that figure subsequently rose to £5 million). The claim itself was an "all or nothing" type claim. Edwards-Stuart J held that although damages of just 95% was not an "available outcome" from the litigation, that in itself did not prevent the offer being a valid Part 36 offer.

Reference was made to the 2003 Court of Appeal decision of Huck v Robson, in which the Court of Appeal allowed the normal costs consequences where the claimant had also offered to accept 95% of her claim. Although it had not been impossible in that case for the claimant to have achieved 95%, that outcome was not likely to result in practice, yet that did not mean the offer was not a Part 36 offer. Nor did it matter that that case was decided before the change of the Part 36 rules.

The claimant accepted that an offer of 98% might be difficult to defend. However, the judge held that the offer here, although very modest, could not be described as derisory:  95% of even £400,000 was still £20,000.

Although the defendant had not yet been told the claimant's entire case at the time of the offer, the defendant should have taken prompt steps to investigate the claim. Accordingly, indemnity costs were awarded from the earliest date by which the defendant could reasonably have put itself in a position to make an informed assessment of the strength of the claim on liability (ie four months from the date of the offer, on the facts).

COMMENT: As well as following Huck v Robson, this case also confirms that the approach adopted in Uren v Corporate Leisure (see Weekly Update 14/13) is correct ie it is appropriate to look not just at the percentage of the claim but also what that equates to in monetary terms. Only "extreme" offers are likely to fail. It is easy to see why claimants in an "all or nothing" type case are subject to scrutiny, since claimants only have to equal their Part 36 offer in order to obtain the enhanced Part 36 costs consequences (hence a claimant could be tempted to "offer" to accept 100% of its claim in such a case). However, where some concession is being made, it is arguable that, since this exercise is only being conducted because the offeror has achieved a better outcome than its offer, the offer cannot have been unreasonable in the first place.

Bailey & Ors v Glaxosmithkline: Disclosure of funding arrangements and substituting an expert

Foskett J considered various case management issues relating to this class action. One of these was that the claimants wished to have permission to substitute two of their experts. One of the claimants' current experts is approaching 80: the judge said that there was no need for evidence as to his capacity to be given. The judge also noted that whilst the substitution of experts is unusual, it is not unknown: "Obviously, it is important for the court not to sanction pure "expert shopping", but I do not detect that in the present case. For whatever reason, it is now five years since the case was due to be heard and it is not surprising that some changes are effectively being forced on the Claimants' side".

However, the judge cautioned against the new experts simply repeating, parrot-fashion, what was said in earlier reports. He refused to comment on the status of the previous reports, saying that that would be a matter for the trial judge. As to costs, it would be unreasonable for the experts (or their lawyers) to simply charge on an hourly basis where much of the ground had already been covered. Before sanctioning the proposed substitutions, though, the judge asked the proposed experts to indicate how many hours they consider it would take them to prepare their reports.

Another issue which arose was whether the claimants had given sufficient information about their funding and ATE insurance arrangements. The judge referred, with apparent approval, to the earlier decisions of West London Pipeline v Total (see Weekly Update 24/08) and XYZ v Various Companies (see Weekly Update 3/13), in which it was held that the court has no power to order disclosure of a defendant's insurance arrangements. Those two decisions conflicted with an earlier decision (Harcourt v Griffin (see Weekly Update 32/07), not referred to in this case, in which it was held that such disclosure could be compelled. In XYZ, the judge had ordered the defendant to provide a witness statement setting out whether it had adequate insurance in place. In this case, Foskett J was prepared to "take at face value" a statement by the claimant's solicitor, to which a statement of truth had been appended, that there was sufficient funding in place.

Chetwynd v Tunmore: Judge dismisses argument that "but for" test of causation did not apply

The "but for" test of causation asks whether the damage of which the claimant complains would have occurred "but for" the defendant's negligence (ie it excludes any irrelevant causes). The "but for" test has not been applied in various cases involving claims for industrial disease or in respect of clinical negligence.

The claimant in this case claimed that excavation works by the defendants had caused a reduction in water levels. The defendants responded that a number of other causes may have reduced the water levels. The claimants argued that a different approach to the "but for" test was appropriate in this case. Instead, they sought to argue that causation would be established if they could show that the excavation made a material contribution (ie was more than minimal) to the reduction. In other words, they sought to extend the test used for industrial disease/clinical negligence cases to cases outside those fields.

The judge rejected that argument: "In my judgment the approach in the disease and clinical negligence cases of only having to establish a material contribution to the injury cannot properly be extended to a case such as the present, where the factual situation is very different". A common feature of the cases where a material contribution was the appropriate test was that there was "one agent or condition brought about by cumulative or consecutive causes, one of which involved fault on the part of the defendant, which resulted in the disease or injury in question". In such cases the defendant might be liable even though it was impossible to prove exactly how the disease or injury was caused.

Pickard v Roberts: Failure to attend and whether hearing had been a "trial"

CPR r39.3 provides that, if a party fails to attend "the trial" and an order or judgment is made against him/her, that order or judgment can only be set aside if three conditions are met (including whether there was a good reason for the non-attendance). Of issue in this case was whether an order made against a party at a hearing was an order made at a "trial". The judge concluded that "the default position with respect to whether or not what takes place at a hearing can be properly described as a trial within CPR 39.3 depends on the context, depends upon the purpose of the hearing and upon the procedural orders which have been made leading up to the hearing, rather than upon the form of whatever has been used in order to get to that hearing". Trials, as distinct from interim hearings, lead to an order which carries with it finality.

Here, both parties had been through various procedural steps so that the matter could be finally determined at the hearing and hence that hearing had been a trial within the meaning of CPR r39.3. Furthermore, there was no basis for the party's assumption that a mediation would be taking place, and hence no good reason for her non-attendance.

Other news

Alternative Dispute Regulations 2015: Since 1 October 2015, all traders selling to consumers have been required to give consumers details of a certified ADR provider and tell the consumer whether they intend to use that provider (although it is not compulsory to use ADR). All businesses which sell services to consumers fall within these requirements (subject to a few limited exceptions), and so both insurers and insurance intermediaries fall within the scope of the Regulations. The European Commission's online platform – the ODR platform- went live on 15th February 2016. This allows consumers who have bought a service online to submit a complaint via the platform to a trader based in another European country. From 15th February 2015, all online traders must include a link on their website to the ODR platform, whether or not they currently market services to consumers in other member states. Companies which ignore these requirements could be liable to Trading Standards civil enforcement action, which could lead to a court order to comply. Further information can be obtained from the link below:

(Re)insurance Weekly Update 6 - 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

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Nigel Brook
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
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 (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

To Use 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.


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.


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