UK: (Re)insurance Weekly Update 41- 2017

Last Updated: 4 December 2017
Article by Nigel Brook
Most Read Contributor in UK, November 2018

Premier Motorauctions v PWC LLP: Court of Appeal orders security for costs where ATE insurance policy did not contain an anti-avoidance provision

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1872.html

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 38/16. The defendants applied for a security for costs order on the basis 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" (CPR r25.13(2)(c)). The defendants had acted for the claimants before the claimants were placed into administration (and subsequently compulsory liquidation). After the claim form was issued, the claimant took out ATE insurance cover. The issue in this case was whether the security for costs order should be made in light of the ATE insurance cover.

At first instance, the judge held that the existence of an ATE policy should be taken into account when asking whether there is reason to believe that the claimant will be unable to pay an adverse costs order (ie the threshold jurisdictional question), rather than only after a security for costs order has been made (and it is necessary to decide whether the policy is as good as cash or a bank guarantee). On the appeal, the Court of Appeal did not disagree with that approach and held that "an appropriately framed ATE insurance policy can in theory be an answer to an application for security".

The judge had then refused to find that there was reason to believe that the ATE policy in question would not respond, and in particular, that the insurers would avoid for non-disclosure or misrepresentation. That was despite the underlying case involving doubts about the credibility of the claimant's managing director. The Court of Appeal has now allowed the appeal from that finding.

It held that "Of course it does not follow that insurers would avoid but the difficulty is that neither the defendants nor the court has any information with which to judge the likelihood of such avoidance. One knows that ATE insurers do seek to avoid their policies if they consider it right to do so". Disbelief of the managing director by a judge could provide grounds for the insurers to avoid.

A key point taken into account by the Court of Appeal was that the policy did not contain any anti-avoidance provisions. It was also unimpressed by the claimant's failure to procure a deed of indemnity from the insurers, which would have confirmed that insurers were giving up their right to avoid. Reference was also made to the recent case of Holyoake v Candy (see Weekly Update 8/17) in which, on a different point, it was concluded that even an ATE policy which provided for avoidance only in cases of fraud was not suitable to stand as fortification for a cross-undertaking in damages.

Accordingly, there was jurisdiction to order security for costs and the Court of Appeal ordered security of £4 million to be provided.

COMMENT: The lack of an anti-avoidance provision in an ATE insurance policy will not necessarily be fatal when the court is considering whether the claimant would be able to pay the defendant's costs, if, for example, it is genuinely very unlikely that the insurers would avoid. However, this case demonstrates that that is an issue which the court will need to spend some time considering. The Court of Appeal recognised that it is "inevitable" that a security for costs application could therefore be blown up into a large interlocutory hearing involving great expenditure of both money and time.

SCF Tankers (formerly Fiona Trust) v Privalov: Court of Appeal holds that judge did not err in assessing damages where a freezing injunction should not have been granted

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2017/1877.html

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 31/16. The substantive claims brought by the claimant against the defendant failed (on the whole), despite the defendant having been found to have acted dishonestly. The claimant had obtained freezing orders against the defendant and he sought enforcement of the usual undertaking in damages which had been provided by the claimant. The main issue in the proceedings was whether the defendant was entitled to damages on the basis that he would have used the frozen funds to build new ships which would have resulted in a profit. Males J held that, adopting a liberal approach to the assessment of the defendant's damages, the defendant was entitled to damages of USD 60 million plus USD 11 million interest (the freezing order having been in place for just 19 days). The Court of Appeal has now dismissed the appeal from that decision.

It has held that the judge had not erred in finding that the defendant had been unable to enter into new contracts to build ships which had resulted in loss which was not too remote. The judge had also been entitled to find that the failure of the defendant to apply to the court for the release of all or part of the frozen funds had not broken the chain of causation, and nor had it been an unreasonable failure to mitigate its loss.

The Court of Appeal acknowledged that if a court decides to enforce a cross-undertaking, a "but for" test of causation is applied. The judge had also been entitled to deal with the question of causation in a common-sense way. The Court of Appeal rejected an argument that the onus had been on the defendant to show that an application to release funds would have failed. It had been prohibited from using the funds and the position taken by the claimant was that it would have resisted any application to remove that prohibition. Furthermore, "The force of his observation that an improperly obtained freezing order is likely to cause significant loss to a businessman has more force where the freezing order departs from the usual form of words for such an order and precludes the person subject to the order from using monies in what is in the ordinary course of his or her business".

The judge had also been entitled to find that the defendant would have faced a "practical dilemma" in attempting to get a quote from the Korean shipyards on the basis that they would like to conclude some shipbuilding contracts, but would need to make an application to the court in order to find out whether they were allowed to do so, whilst at the same time needing some concrete proposal in hand for the court to assess before applying to the court for permission.

Koza Ltd v Akcil: Court rules that payments to a PR firm are within the ordinary course of business

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2017/2889.html

The claimant in this case had given an undertaking to "not dispose of, deal with or diminish the value of any funds belonging to it or held to its order other than in the ordinary course of business". Thus, although not a freezing order, the wording of the undertaking closely mirrored the wording used in the standard form freezing order. One of the issues in the case was whether the claimant would be allowed to pay up to £30,000 per month to a firm of PR consultants as part of the "ordinary course of business".

The judge held that it would not necessarily be improper to incur expense in defending or promoting the reputation of a director of the claimant: "Conversely, if this class of expenditure is allowed, that does not permit [the claimant] to spend monies otherwise than for the benefit of the company and in the ordinary and proper course of business. [The claimant] will need to take care not to breach the Undertaking by paying for PR services that do not fall within it, especially as the company's prime decision maker is [the director] and human nature being what it is that may enhance the risk of confusion between his interests and those of the company".

Lewington v The Motor Insurers' Bureau: Court rules that arbitrator erred in finding dumper truck was not a "motor vehicle" under the Road Traffic Act 1988

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2017/2848.html

The claimant was injured when she swerved to avoid an unlit dumper truck which was travelling on the A-road ahead of her. The dumper truck had been stolen from a quarry and the driver was never found. She sought to claim against the Motor Insurers' Bureau ("the MIB"). The MIB argued that the dumper truck was not a "motor vehicle" for the purpose of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (which includes the MIB provisions relevant to this case). Section 185 of the Act defines a "motor vehicle" as "a mechanically propelled vehicle intended or adapted for use on roads". However, the relevant EC Directive defines a "vehicle" as meaning "any motor vehicle intended for travel on land and propelled by mechanical power". In an arbitration between the claimant and the MIB, the arbitrator held that the dumper truck was not a motor vehicle and did not require motor insurance. In so doing, he had focused on the difference between "road" and "land" and had found that "A reasonable person would not have contemplated the use of the earth mover on a road unless that use had been unlawful".

Bryan J has now allowed the appeal from that decision. The correct legal test is whether some general use on the roads was contemplated as one of the uses for the vehicle. The arbitrator had erred in law and applying the facts to the correct test, the judge said that "I consider that when contemplating the use of an earth mover on roads, a reasonable person would contemplate what thieves and criminals might do and might use the item to do, such as take it from a quarry and drive it, as part of a theft, on public roads". Furthermore, the arbitrator should have applied Marleasing principles to make the definition in section 185 more compatible with the Directive, given the common purpose of the Road Traffic Act and the Directive.

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
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
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