UK: A Summary Of Recent Developments In Insurance, Reinsurance And Litigation Law

Last Updated: 25 March 2010
Article by Nigel Brook

Horwood & Ors v Land of Leather & Zurich

Breach of condition giving control of claims to insurer/scope of implied duty of good faith during the policy

The claimants alleged that they suffered personal injury from the use of sofas purchased from (inter alia) Land of Leather ("LoL"). LoL was insured in respect of product liability by Zurich. After LoL went into administration, the claimants sought to claim against Zurich pursuant to the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. Zurich claimed that it was not liable to indemnify LoL and so was not liable to the claimants. Zurich claimed that LoL was in breach of a condition ("Condition 3") which gave it the right (inter alia) to control settlements and prohibited settlements by the insured without the consent of Zurich. LoL had entered into a settlement with the sofa manufacturer, whereby the manufacturer compensated it for damage to reputation and unsold stock.

However, a further agreement was entered into a few months later, under which (the judge found) LoL had agreed that it would not pursue any right of indemnity from the manufacturer in respect of any liability for personal injury which LoL owed to the claimants. Teare J went on to consider whether, as a result of that agreement, insurers could rely on two defences:

  • Breach of Condition 3. The judge rejected the argument that the prohibition on settling claims applied only to claims against the insured and not to claims which the insured itself could bring against third parties. Furthermore, the condition was given the status of a condition precedent to liability in the policy. Accordingly, Zurich was not liable to indemnify LoL.
  • Breach of an implied term. Zurich argued that if the agreement with the manufacturer had not extended to the release of the personal injury claims (or, if it did, but the agreement was unenforceable), LoL was still in breach of an implied term of the policy to act reasonably and in good faith with due regard to Zurich's interests and rights of subrogation. In view of the judge's conclusion that Zurich did not have to indemnify LoL, he did not need to reach a decision on this issue but he stated what his decision would have been had it been necessary.

It was argued on behalf of LoL that the implied duty did not extend to the situation where a settlement was not actually concluded and so the insurer was not prejudiced. That argument was rejected by Teare J. The implied term arises because the insurer has a contingent right to be subrogated to the rights of the insured when he indemnifies the insured. If the insured acts without regard to that contingent right, he may harm the value of that right to the insurer. Obviously a settlement may deprive the insurer of that right, "But in principle harm may be caused to the insurer's rights of subrogation where the claim against the third party is not lost or reduced in value by settlement. For example, the documents necessary to establish such claim may be destroyed".

However, on the facts of the case, if there was no settlement by LoL, there was no breach of the implied term even on this formulation of the implied term (although if the settlement had been concluded but was unenforceable, the judge said that that would have been a breach of the implied term, but that it could not have caused any loss).

Pegasus v Ernst & Young

When is damage sustained in a "wrong transaction" case - of possible interest to liability insurers

The first instance judgment in this case was reported in Weekly Update 44/08. The claimant issued a claim form against the defendant firm of accountants in November 2005 alleging negligent advice which led to a subscription for shares in a company in April 1998. At first instance, Lewinson J found that the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. He also went on to find that the claim was time-barred in any event because damage had been suffered when the transaction took place. The claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeal upheld Lewinson J's finding that the claimant had no realistic prospect of proving that it had entered into a retainer with the defendant or that the defendant had assumed responsibility to the claimant. Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment. The claimant had further argued that no damage had been suffered in April 1998 because the "adverse consequences" from the transaction (broadly, having to pay more tax when the shares are sold in future) had not taken place yet (because the shares had not yet been sold). The claimant was not "inevitably doomed" to suffer the adverse consequences - he could, for example, have liquidated the company and repaid himself the next day. That argument was also rejected by the Court of Appeal. This was a "wrong transaction" case, whereby, because of the alleged negligence of the defendant, the claimant had not received what it ought to have received. The Court of Appeal, having reviewed the relevant authorities, found that in the past, arguments that the claimant had, immediately after the transaction, only faced the possibility or risk of future losses had not succeeded in showing that actual damage had not yet been sustained. Although the quantification of the claimant's loss in this case, if carried out at an early stage, would undoubtedly have been very difficult, that did not prevent a finding that damage had already been suffered and "the court would have done the best it could". Accordingly, the claim was also time-barred.

Carillion JM v PHI Group

Consequences of delaying commencement of Part 20 proceedings

Trial in the main proceedings was put back from January to May 2010.The defendant then applied to bring in a new party (W) by way of Part 20 proceedings in order to seek contribution or indemnity from W. The defendant first decided to bring proceedings against W (and wrote to W) in December 2009 but did not apply to join him to the proceedings until March 2010. The defendant said that it had required adequate time for the consideration of the matter with its legal advisers and insurers. Edwards-Stuart J rejected that explanation: "it should not have taken 2 and a half months for insurers to give the necessary instructions". Nor should the defendant have taken time to allow the pre-action protocol procedure to take place when trial was relatively imminent. The defendant also advised that other things had been going on in its camp during this period but that details could not be provided because those matters were privileged. The judge said that if a candid explanation for the unsatisfactory delay was not provided "the party seeking the indulgence of the court is likely to get fairly short shrift".

As a combined hearing could not now take place without a further adjournment of the trial (because W needed time to prepare for trial), this was an example of a "rare" case where the Part 20 claim should be heard and determined after the principal claim. The judge added that if W was ordered to provide disclosure well before the trial date and to serve his defence a reasonable time before the trial, the defendant would be given substantial protection against the risk of inconsistent findings of fact.

CFH Total v OCE

Transfer of case from Mercantile Court to TCC

The action was started in the Mercantile Court in the Bristol District Registry. The defendant applied to the TCC for the case to be transferred to the TCC in London. CPR r30.5 applied because both the Mercantile Court and the TCC are a "specialist list". That rule provides that a judge dealing with claims in a specialist list may order the action to be transferred to or from that list, so an application could be made to either a TCC or a Mercantile Court judge. However, the application here also involved the transfer of a claim from the Bristol District Registry to the Royal Courts of Justice in London. That meant that CPR r30.2 also applied. That rule provides that the application must be made to the District Registry in which the claim is proceeding. Edwards-Stuart J held that in these circumstances, it was for the judge in the District Registry to decide whether or not to raise the matter with the Judge in Charge in the TCC in London before transferring the proceedings. However, the judge agreed to hear the application because he had already heard submissions from the parties.

Prior caselaw has indicated that material facts to be taken into account when a transfer is requested include expedition and the saving of costs. However, Edwards-Stuart held that "the suitability of the court, in terms of the expertise of its judges, to deal with the subject matter of a particular claim is the single most important consideration". It is only if there is little to choose between the expertise of the two courts that other factors might become decisive. In this case, he held that although the TCC was an appropriate court, it was not the only appropriate court and it would not be inappropriate for a judge in the Mercantile Court to hear the case. Because the balance in terms of costs only marginally favoured London, that was not sufficient to justify depriving the claimants of their choice of venue.

Mentmore Towers v Packman Lucas

Injunction to restrain referral to adjudication

One of the issues raised in this case was whether the court had the power to grant an injunction restraining a party from pursuing a referral to adjudication. The claimants had argued that there was a difference between litigation and adjudication since adjudication does not give rise to a decision that is finally binding and there is nothing to prevent a party starting an adjudication in respect of a dispute which the courts are already dealing with (see Herschel Engineering v Breen Property [2000]). Accordingly, it was the claimants' view that different principles applied for applications for an injunction to restrain adjudication.

Edwards-Stuart J held that he saw no reason why a referral to adjudication that is unreasonable or oppressive should not be restrained. However, the fact that a claim was being pursued by adjudication might affect the court's view as to whether or not it was unreasonable or oppressive. There might be an argument that adjudication is less oppressive because it is quicker and cheaper than litigation. However, there is also an argument that the unreasonable pursuit of a claim by way of adjudication is oppressive because a winning defendant will be unable to recover his costs and (as the adjudicator's decision is not finally binding) litigation or arbitration might have to follow. On the facts of this case, the judge decided to grant the injunction.

Tom Hoskins v EMW

Assessment of damages in professional negligence case

Floyd J found that the defendant firm of solicitors had breached its duty to the claimant in the way it handled the sale of the claimant's properties. The claimant argued that as a result it was only able to complete the transaction late and on relatively unfavourable terms. The solicitors argued that as the assessment of the claimant's damages depended on the hypothetical actions of third parties, this was a loss of chance case and so the judge should consider, on a balance of probabilities, how the claimant would have acted and then should consider whether the claimant had shown that there was a real and substantial (as opposed to a speculative) chance that the third parties would have acted so as to confer the benefit in question (see Allied Maples v Simmons & Simmons [1995]). The claimant countered that that process was not necessary since evidence of how the third parties would have behaved was available. The judge rejected the claimant's argument. The application of the loss of chance principle "ought to depend on the nature of the loss claimed rather than the evidence which happens to be called." The judge applied the Allied Maples approach.

The judge also went on to find that the Court of Appeal decision in Galoo v Bright Grahame Murray [1994] did not hold that trading losses can in no circumstances be recoverable in law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
Nigel Brook
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions