UK: (Re)insurance Weekly Update 10- 2016

Last Updated: 18 March 2016
Article by Nigel Brook

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

This week's caselaw:

Gentry v Miller: Court of Appeal considers insurers' application to set aside default judgment where alleged fraud discovered subsequently

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/141.html

The claimant was involved in an accident with the defendant and alleged that the defendant was at fault. The defendant's insurers admitted liability in April 2013 but did not make any further settlement offer, despite hire charges continuing to accrue and being chased by the claimant's solicitors over 5 times. Proceedings were then issued against the defendant alone in July 2013 and default judgment was obtained a month later. A further hearing assessed damages but the insurers were not notified of the hearing before it took place. When they were told about the award, they then instructed solicitors (in November 2013) and an application to set aside the default judgment pursuant to CPR r13.3 was made, and subsequently granted. The claimant appealed against that decision and the insurers then alleged that the claim was fraudulent and that the claimant and defendant had known each other before the accident.

The Court of Appeal has now held as follows:

(1) The judge had been wrong to regard allegations of fraud as providing an exemption from the tests set out in Mitchell (see Weekly Update 43/13) and Denton (see Weekly Update 26/14).

(2) The tests set out in Denton apply to applications under CPR r13.3.

(3) A default judgment cannot be set aside as a matter of course just because an arguable fraud has been alleged, however long after that judgment the application is made.

(4) The delay of two months, including the Christmas period, taken by the insurers to investigate the claim after the solicitors were instructed "may not, in itself, be unreasonable". However, there had been no explanation for the delay in instructing solicitors in the first place, or in commencing the investigation.

(5) The insurers had shown a real prospect of successfully defending the claim (the first part of CPR r13.3). However, the court is entitled (under the second part of CPR r13.3) to take into account whether the application had been made promptly. The Court of Appeal held that after admitting liability in April 2013, the insurers had known it was at risk of proceedings but they had failed to instruct solicitors for a further 7 months. The insurers could also have found out "with reasonable diligence" about the default judgment by the end of September 2013 (and so could then have applied to set it aside). It was held that: "The court cannot ignore that insurers are professional litigants, who can properly be held responsible for any blatant disregard of their own commercial interests".

(6) Applying the tests laid down in Denton, there was no reasonable excuse for the insurers' delay: "The insurer could and should have protected itself when it knew proceedings were being issued by appointing solicitors to accept service on behalf of [the defendant].... It cannot avail an insurer in this position to say it was not a party to the claim at that stage. It was directly affected by it and knew that it had to protect its interests from the moment liability was admitted. It was able at any stage to conduct [the defendant's] defence".

(7) Nor should the order assessing damages be set aside pursuant to CPR r39.3(5). This rule refers to a party who has failed to attend trial for a good reason: "There is an anomaly in the conditions, because they apply to "a party who failed to attend the trial" and the insurer was not such a party. But in a case of this kind, it seems to me that the insurer cannot be regarded as being in a better position than its insured". If the insured failed to protect the insurers' interests (because, it is alleged, he was colluding with the claimant), that is a matter between the insurers and the insured and the insurers will have to pursue what remedies they can by way of a new fraud action.

COMMENT: One point of more general interest in the case is the Court of Appeal's confirmation that a period of two months (including the Christmas period) to investigate a (at the time) low value road traffic accident claim may be reasonable. That is noteworthy because of the potential changes to English law allowing for late payment damages where an insurer has unreasonably delayed paying a claim.  It may be recalled that in Brit UW Ltd v F&B Trenchless Solutions (see Weekly Update 29/15), the judge cited a period of 4-5 months as being a reasonable timeframe to allow investigation of a complex claim under a contractors' combined liability policy (plus a decision on whether to avoid). Those two decisions therefore give some indication of the amount of time which the courts may allow for insurers to investigate a claim, if the Enterprise Bill is passed.

SARPD Oil v Addax Energy: The Court of Appeal considers a security for costs application where there is little financial information regarding the claimant/the costs of Part 20 proceedings/costs budgets

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/120.html

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 31/15. The defendant sought security for costs from the claimant, a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. The application was not made pursuant to ground (a) of CPR r25.12 (ie that the claimant is resident out of the EEA), because it could not be shown that there would be an extra burden/cost of enforcing a judgment in the BVI. Instead, the application was brought under ground (c) (ie that the claimant is a company and "there is reason to believe that it will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if ordered to do so").

However, the claimant had given no details of its financial position and the defendant had access to only limited information. As a result, Smith J had concluded that ground (c) had not been established, finding that there was nothing inherently "secretive" about incorporation in the BVI and the claimant was not required to demonstrate that it would have means to pay a costs order. He also criticised a Commercial Court practice of ordering security in this type of situation.

The Court of Appeal has now allowed the appeal from that decision. It held that: "If a company is given every opportunity to show that it can pay a defendant's costs and deliberately refuses to do so there is, in our view, every reason to believe that, if and when it is required to pay a defendant's costs, it will be unable to do so". Although deliberate reticence is not a breach of the rules, the court can and should take account of it as part of the overall picture. The Commercial Court practice was said to be sound and the Court of Appeal upheld it.

The judge's finding regarding the Part 20 defendant's costs was also reversed. If the claimant was to lose, then the defendant would be ordered to pay the costs of the Part 20 defendant (and it is highly likely that the defendant could then recover those costs from the claimant). The Part 20 defendant's costs would therefore be the defendant's costs, and so ought to be covered by any security for costs order in its favour.  The Court of Appeal upheld the judge's finding, though, that the security costs order would cover the defendant's own costs in pursuing the Part 20 proceedings against the third party.

The Court of Appeal also agreed with the judge that he could not depart from the defendant's approved costs budget  when considering how the defendant's costs should be assessed. Strictly speaking, the court cannot approve the costs already incurred before the costs budget was approved. However, the court was entitled to comment on that element of the defendant's costs and, if it felt that the costs already incurred were reasonable and proportionate, it is likely that those incurred costs would be included in any standard assessment of costs at the end of the case. Accordingly, "There was little if any difference between the practical effect of the court's order in relation to incurred costs and its order in relation to estimated costs". The approved costs budget was a "strong guide" to the likely costs order to be made after trial if the defendant wins.

Alan Ramsay Sales v Typhoo Tea: Judge decides whether without prejudice privilege could be claimed

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/486.html

The claimant alleged that the defendant was in repudiatory breach of contract when it sent two emails giving notice to terminate a contract. The defendant countered that the claimant couldn't rely on the emails because they were protected by without prejudice privilege. Although the emails were marked "without prejudice", the claimant argued that they were not protected by the privilege because there was no extant dispute between the parties (and the dispute arose upon receipt of the emails) and they were instead a statement of intention in mandatory terms. Flaux J reviewed the existing case law on WP privilege and held as follows:

(1) The parties can, by contract, extend the usual ambit of the WP rule (but they had not done so in this case).

(2) In deciding if there is a "dispute", a "crucial consideration is whether, in the course of negotiations, the parties contemplated or might reasonably have contemplated litigation if they did not agree" (see Barnetson v Framlington (Weekly Update 22/07)). This doesn't turn on temporal considerations – instead it is necessary to look at the subject matter of the dispute.

(3) The issue of whether there is a dispute has to be determined objectively.

(4) Sometimes public policy considerations override the public policy protecting without prejudice communications. However, the judge concluded that there is no public policy requiring repudiatory conduct to be opened up and to override WP privilege.

On the facts of the case, Flaux J concluded that the emails were protected by WP privilege. The dispute could not be said to have started with the sending of the emails. If viewed in isolation, they could be seen as being somewhat mandatory, but when seen as part of the whole chain of correspondence, they were still part of ongoing negotiations.

Kanev-Lipinski v Lipinski: Freezing orders and the lack of evidence of dissipation

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2016/475.html

In this case, the judge held that no risk of dissipation had been made out by the claimant. Of particular relevance to that decision was the fact that there was close supervision of the defendant's businesses by lenders, given the highly geared nature of his companies' investments (although the judge hadn't been taken to the banking documentation, she said that this was an "obvious truth"). Furthermore, the companies' accounts were regularly checked by the lenders and accountants. It was also relevant that the companies' lending had been secured by a personal guarantee from the defendant. His lawyers had argued that he would not act to destroy his business and make himself bankrupt.

A further significant factor was that the defendant had had over 3 years to dissipate assets had he chosen to do so.

COMMENT: The judgment did not cite the decision of Enercon v Enercon (see Weekly Update 12/12), but in that case too it was held that, as that the defendant was audited annually by Deloitte and had "substantial and ongoing relationships with its banks", those factors counted against a finding of a risk of dissipation (and in that case there had also been delay in applying for an order).

Europa Plus v Anthracite Investments: Judge summarises principles of interpreting contracts and commercial common sense/defined terms

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/437.html

In this case, Popplewell J usefully summarised the principles regarding applying commercial common sense when interpreting a contract. He said as follows:

(1) Reliance on commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances should not be invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the contract;

(2) The less clear words are, the more ready the court can properly be to depart from their natural meaning. However, the court should not search for "drafting infelicities".

(3) Commercial common sense is not to be invoked retrospectively. Just because a contract has worked out very badly for one of the parties, that is not a reason to depart from the natural language.

(4) The court can't take into account a fact or circumstance which was known by only one of the parties.

(5) Where a defined term is used, the court will often start with the defined meaning, but not always: "It is a common experience that defined terms are not always used consistently by contractual draftsmen throughout a commercial contract". Even without inconsistency, "it does not follow that effect must always be given to the defined meaning. If, as is well known, parties sometimes use defined terms inappropriately, it follows that they may have done so only once, in the provision which is being interpreted".

It may be that, by testing against the commercial consequences and the background facts, the court may conclude that the parties did not intend the defined term to bear the defined meaning. It was said that this was no less so where the contract has been drafted by lawyers.

Accordingly, the judge concluded that prior observations by judges that the court should only fail to give effect to the use of a defined term if absurdity is established were not consistent with the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Rainy Sky v Kookmin (see Weekly Update 39/11).

Magellan Spirit v Vitol: Undisclosed principal test and delay in applying for an anti-suit injunction

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2016/454.html

The claimant applied for an anti-suit injunction to restrain the defendant from pursuing proceedings in Nigeria, on the basis that it had agreed to refer disputes to the English courts. The relevant agreement was entered into by a Bermudian company which was part of the same group to which the defendant belonged. It was argued that the Bermudian company had entered into the agreement as the agent of the defendant. Although nothing in the agreement itself suggested an agency agreement, the claimant alleged that the defendant was an undisclosed principal.

The undisclosed principal doctrine is well established and provides that a principal who was at the time of contracting undisclosed can sue or be sued on the contract of his agent. The Privy Council has held that, in entering the contract, the agent must intend to act on the principal's behalf (see Siu Yin Kwan v Eastern Insurance [1994]).

Of issue in this case was whether that test of intention is subjective (given that the representative of the Bermudian company gave evidence that he intended to sign on behalf of his company as principal and not agent). Leggatt J held that it was not subjective and that it would give rise to "wholly unacceptable uncertainty" if the doctrine could be invoked even though the supposed agent had not communicated his private intention to the supposed principal: "The question whether an undisclosed agency relationship was created must depend in principle, as I see it, not on the state of mind of the supposed agent at the time of contracting, but on whether the supposed agent had communicated to the supposed principal an intention to contract on its behalf".

The judge concluded, on the evidence, that the doctrine did not apply here.

He also considered whether the application for an anti-suit injunction would have failed anyway because of the claimant's delay in bringing the application. He held that it would have. Although the claimant could not be criticised for not taking action before being served with the Nigerian proceedings (where no meaningful pre-action correspondence had taken place), prompt action was required once served. A decision to contest jurisdiction in Nigeria did not justify delaying an application to the English courts for an anti-suit injunction. Furthermore, "the fact that the delay in applying for an injunction was the result of a deliberate tactical decision to first wait and see if more information might emerge which would bolster the claimant's case is no reason to discount the delay or belittle its significance". In addition, steps had been taken and costs incurred by the claimant in the Nigerian proceedings eg it had filed a defence on the merits, such that it would not be inappropriate for the English courts to intervene.

COMMENT: This case continues a trend of recent caselaw to refuse anti-suit injunctions where there has been delay. For example, in the recent case of Essar Shipping v Bank of China (see Weekly Update 42/15), an injunction was refused because of the applicant's delay even though there had been no detrimental reliance on the delay.

(Re)insurance Weekly Update 10- 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
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.