UK: (Re)insurance Weekly Update 36 - 2018

Last Updated: 6 November 2018
Article by Nigel Brook
Most Read Contributor in UK, December 2018

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

AIG Europe Ltd & Anor, Re: Court sanctions Part VII scheme involving an EU cross-border merger ahead of Brexit

The applicant English insurance company sought approval of the court under Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("Part VII") for its proposed transfer of insurance business. In order to allow it to continue to service its existing business and to write new business across the UK and the rest of Europe after Brexit, it intended (with effect from 1 December 2018) to: (1) transfer the UK and non-EEA part of its business to a new English company, regulated by the FCA and PRA; and (2) transfer the EEA part of its business to a new Luxembourg company by an EU cross-border merger between the existing English company and the new Luxembourg company. The applicant would then cease to exist. The applicant intended to use a cross-border merger company because it was advised that this would maximise the prospect of recognition in overseas jurisdictions.

Snowden J has now approved the scheme. In so doing, he noted that the use of a Part VII scheme which involves an EU cross-border merger is novel and held as follows:

  1. He had jurisdiction to sanction a scheme where the transfer of insurance policies is to be achieved in part by an order under section 112 of the FSMA and in part by means of a cross-border merger under EU Directive 2017/1132 and the Cross-Border Mergers ("CBM") Regulations.
  2. Although there are no express provisions in the Directive or the CBM Regulations dealing with the continuity of legal proceedings in the event of a cross-border merger, the judge thought that such a result could be implied. In any event, he believed he could make an order under section 112  in relation to the continuation of proceedings and claims by and against the new Luxembourg company.
  3. The judge noted that the current situation regarding Brexit differs from previous applications to sanction a scheme: "The evidence of [the applicant] is that the uncertainty over the Brexit negotiations means that if it delayed further and did nothing, there is a real risk that substantial numbers of policyholders would be materially prejudiced in event of a "hard" Brexit by the loss of [the applicant]'s EU passporting rights, and a resultant inability of [the applicant] to continue to service policies through its overseas branches or even pay policyholders' claims in other EU jurisdictions. The concerns expressed by [the applicant] seem genuine and reasonable..." Furthermore, the judge said he had to balance the risk of prejudice to a large body of policyholders in the EEA if the scheme is not sanctioned against any potential risk of prejudice to individual policyholders.
  4. Taking into account the independent expert's reports and the views of the regulators and objecting policyholders, the judge concluded that the scheme "is entirely fair as regards the different groups of policyholders and does not cause them any material prejudice". There was no tangible material prejudice to policyholders arising from a loss of insurer identity. Furthermore, although the policyholders whose policies were transferred to the new Luxembourg company will lose access to the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, the judge concluded that "the prospect that [the new Luxembourg company] will default on its obligations so as to bring access to a compensation scheme into play is not a real risk, but is remote in the extreme".

VM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants: Court of Appeal dismisses appeal from decision that company was vicariously liable for data protection breach by employee

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 44/17. A disgruntled employee of the defendant employer leaked the personal details (including bank account details) of almost 100,000 other employees on the internet. The employee was a senior IT auditor and had been motivated by a grudge against his employer. At first instance, the judge found that the employer was not directly liable for the breach, which it had not authorised or required, and it had not been the "data controller" at the time of the breach. The employer had put in place adequate and appropriate controls and there had been no indication that the employee, although upset by recent disciplinary action, could not be trusted to do his job. There was no appeal from that decision. However, the judge found that the employer was vicariously liable for the breach and the employer appealed against that decision.

The Court of Appeal has now dismissed that appeal. It agreed with the judge that it is possible for an employer to be held to be vicariously liable for breaches by its employee of the Data Protection Act 1998 ("the DPA"). It held that it was not implicit that Parliament had intended to exclude vicarious liability from the scope of the Act: "if Parliament had intended such a substantial eradication of the common law and equitable rights, it might have been expected to say so expressly".

The Court of Appeal also agreed that, on the facts, the judge had been correct to find that there had been a "seamless and continuous sequence" of events between the breach and the employment relationship. Dealing with the employees' data was a task specifically assigned to this employee. Nor did it make any difference that the breach took place away from the workplace, using his own computer on a Sunday. The Court of Appeal referred to the recent decision in Bellman v Northampton Recruitment (see Weekly Update 36/18) (which was handed down the day after the hearing in this case), in which the employer was held vicariously liable for a tort committed away from the workplace.

At first instance, the judge had added that "the point which most troubled me in reaching these conclusions was the submission that the wrongful acts of [the employee] were deliberately aimed at the party whom the claimants seek to hold responsible, such that to reach the conclusion I have may seem to render the court an accessory in furthering his criminal aims". The Court of Appeal dismissed those concerns. Prior cases have held that the motive of the employee in a vicarious liability case is irrelevant and there was no exception where the motive was to cause financial or reputational damage to the employer.

Nor did it matter that the potential scale of litigation against employers for data breaches could be ruinous for some employers. The Court of Appeal believed that insurance was the answer: "The solution is to insure against such catastrophes; and employers can likewise insure against losses caused by dishonest or malicious employees. We have not been told what the insurance position is in the present case, and of course it cannot affect the result. The fact of a defendant being insured is not a reason for imposing liability, but the availability of insurance is a valid answer to the Doomsday or Armageddon arguments".

Lyons v Fox Williams: Court of Appeal rejects argument that a solicitor had a duty to warn

The first instance decision in this case was reported in Weekly Update 39/16. The claimant was injured in a road accident in Russia. He sought to claim under two insurance policies taken out by his employer for the benefit of its employees: (1) an Accidental Death and Dismemberment ("AD&D") policy and (2) a Long Term Disability ("LTD") policy. The claimant alleged that his solicitor's advice regarding the AD&D policy was negligent, but that claim settled. He also alleged that the solicitor's handling of his LTD policy claim had been negligent but at first instance it was held that, on the facts of the case, the LTD claim had fallen outside of the scope of the solicitor's retainer and nor was the solicitor under a duty to warn the claimant of the scope and validity of the LTD policy. The claimant was given permission to appeal the duty to warn point.

The Court of Appeal has now dismissed that appeal. The solicitor did not have a duty to warn in substantive terms about the claimant's rights under the policy and what needed to be done to prevent them from becoming time-barred. The Court of Appeal confirmed that a solicitor is not required "to carry out investigative tasks in areas he had not been asked to deal with however beneficial to the client that might in fact have turned out to be". The solicitor would have had to carry out a thorough examination of the policies and a certain amount of legal research to advise about rights under the policy, and he was never instructed to advise on the policy.

Nor did the solicitor have any duty to warn the claimant that he needed to obtain legal advice about the LTD claim. On the facts, it was held that, had the solicitor offered to give advice about the LTD policy, the claimant would not have agreed to his giving it or being paid for it.

Bentley Design Consultants v Sansom: Whether Part 36 offer to settle the whole claim settled further claim added later on

The claimant engaged the services of the defendant to help construct two properties. He commenced proceedings against the defendant in respect of one of the properties, and subsequently made a Part 36 offer to settle that claim. The offer was expressed to be intended to settle "the whole of this claim". The offer was not accepted at that time. Amended Particulars of Claim were subsequently filed to add the claim in respect of the other property. Later on, the defendant accepted the Part 36 offer and argued that the claim in respect of both properties had been settled because, it argued, "if the nature and extent of the claim varies in the course of proceedings, the offer remains an offer to settle the whole of the claim (whatever it may now be)". The claimant countered that only the claim in respect of the first property had been settled.

The judge agreed with the claimant.

She accepted that where an offer in respect of the whole of the claim is made and the scope or value of the claim subsequently increases, and the offer is not withdrawn or varied, "the offer relates to the whole of the claim made at any time the offer remains open for acceptance". However, this case was different because the offer was clearly only intended to settle the claim in respect of the first property, and that did not change when the second property was added to the extant proceedings: that was a distinct and separate "claim": "That puts this case into a very different picture from the one in which a further cause of action in respect of the same subject matter is added to the claim or a fresh allegation or further head of damage is added in relation to an already pleaded claim".

Hosking v Apax Partners: Judge holds defendant entitled to indemnity costs following discontinuance

Where a claim is discontinued, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, or the court orders otherwise, the normal position will be that the claimant will be liable for the costs incurred by the defendant up to the date on which the notice of discontinuance was served (see CPR r.38.6(1)). The defendant's costs will usually be assessed on the standard basis, if not agreed. However, indemnity costs can sometimes be ordered. In prior caselaw, it has generally been ordered either where it was clear beyond doubt that the claimant had no case or where a claimant made serious allegations of fraud the defendant has been deprived of any opportunity to vindicate his reputation (see eg PJSC Aeroflot v Russian Airlines (Weekly Update 25/18)).

In this case, Hildyard J accepted that indemnity costs will be ordered only if the case is "out of the norm". The hallmark of such a case is where the proceedings have "been high risk, and apparently pursued, and usually publicised, to exert pressure in the hope of extracting a settlement, with frail evidential support and little regard to their prospects of success at trial or any real and realistic objective of securing vindication by adjudication". In such a case, the court is intentionally "being used as an anvil for settlement rather than as an adjudicator".

The judge awarded indemnity costs in this case, which was one in which litigation was aggressively pursued in multiple jurisdictions, with a view to obtaining a settlement. Relevant factors included "The pursuit to the doors of the Court, and four days beyond, of serious allegations of commercial impropriety, which were suddenly abandoned only when settlement talks failed, and then without explanation and without visible change in the forensic landscape", as well as the publicity attending the case.

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
In association with
Related Topics
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