Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v AIG Europe Insurance Ltd: SC 26 Oct 2016

Solicitors had arranged loans to cover for clients the disbursements to be made for litigation. The solicitors had then acted so as to breach the agreements, and upon being called on themselves to repay, the solicitors went into liquidation. The court was now asked whether their professinal insurers were liable to the cients, when the insurance contracts excluded ‘trading liabilities’.
Held: The insurers’ appeal succeeded.

Lord Mance , Lord Sumption , Lord Carnwath , Lord Toulson , Lord Hodge JJSC
[2016] UKSC 57, [2016] 3 WLR 1422, [2016] WLR(D) 558
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales

Insurance, Legal Professions

Updated: 25 January 2022; Ref: scu.570981

Wave Lending Ltd v Batra and Another: ChD 13 Sep 2016

The claimant had brought proceedings against the two defendants in 2009. A private settlement was reached with the first defendant, but the second, a then bankrupt firm of solicitors took no part. The claimant now sought to restore the claima against the solicitors. It was now said that the claim should be dismissed on the basis that the claimant and the solicitors had acted dishonestly and there were no funds for payment of any damages, insurance cover having been repudiated.
Held: The 2010 Act was not in force at the time of the application.

Marsh, Chief Master
[2016] EWHC 2238 (Ch)
Bailii
Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010
England and Wales

Litigation Practice, Legal Professions, Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.569415

UK Insurance Ltd v Rands Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering): CA 12 Apr 2017

Sir Terence Etherton MR, Beatson, Henderson LJJ
[2017] EWCA Civ 259, [2017] WLR(D) 286, [2017] 4 All ER 199, [2017] QB 1357, [2017] 3 WLR 450, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 463, [2017] RTR 25
Bailii, WLRD
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromUK Insurance Ltd v Holden QBD 2017
The car owner was repairing his car, but his negligence caused a fire which extended to a neighbour’s property. The insurance companies sought declarations as to liability under his road traffic insurance policy. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from (CA)R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.582101

RoadPeace v Secretary of State for Transport: Admn 7 Nov 2017

RoadPeace challenged certain legislation, as to compulsory insurance for motor vehicles, and for payment of compensation for personal injury and damages caused by uninsured driver, saying that it failed properly to implement European law.
Held: Ouseley J recorded and accepted the view of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau that section 145(3)(a) could not be read down and that there required to be amending legislation.

Ouseley J
[2017] EWHC 2725 (Admin), [2017] WLR(D) 736
Bailii, WLRD
Road Traffic Act 1988 145 151 153(3), Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 1(4), European Communities (Rights Against Insurers) Regulations 2002, Parliament and Council Directive 2009/103/EC
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedR and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, Personal Injury, Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.599418

Vnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav DD: ECJ 26 Feb 2014

ECJ Opinion – Automobile Liability Insurance – Concept of ‘vehicular’ – Accident caused by a tractor with a trailer during harvest bales of hay in a barn

Mengozzi AG
C-162/13, [2014] EUECJ C-162/13, [2014] EUECJ C-162/13, [2016] RTR 10
Bailii, Bailii
European
Cited by:
CitedR and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.521842

Assicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): CA 13 Nov 2002

Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal

The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. Tanfern was limited to appeals from interlocutory orders. The judge had seen the witnesses, and his assessment was to be interfered with only with great caution. It was not suggested here that the evidence should be reheard.
To prove inducement the insurer or reinsurer must show that the non-disclosure or misrepresentation was an effective cause of his entering into the contract on the terms on which he did. The judge was correct that ARIG had not shown that, if it had known the full facts, it would not have entered into the contracts or would have taken some other share. There was no basis for the court to interfere with that conclusion.
Ward LJ (dissenting) said: ‘I take the law to be this: if it be established that the representee did not allow the representation to affect his judgment in any way then he could not make it a ground for relief. If on the other hand the representee relied on the misrepresentation, then the representor cannot defeat his claim for relief by showing that there were other more weighty causes which contributed to his decision to enter into the contract. In this field the Court does not allow an examination of the relative importance of contributory causes. In other words, it is sufficient if the representation is a cause even if it is not the cause operating on the mind of the representee when he enters into the contract’.
Ward LJ discussed the difficulties of an appeal court reviewing a trial judges finding of fact, saying: ‘Bearing these matters in mind, the appeal court conducting a review of the trial judge’s decision will not conclude that the decision was wrong simply because it is not the decision the appeal judge would have made had he or she been called upon to make it in the court below. Something more is required than personal unease and something less than perversity has to be established . . I would pose the test for deciding whether a finding of fact was against the evidence to be whether that finding by the trial judge exceeded the generous ambit within which reasonable disagreement about the conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is possible. The difficulty or ease with which that test can be satisfied will depend on the nature of the finding under attack. If the challenge is to the finding of a primary fact, particularly if founded upon an assessment of the credibility of witnesses, then it will be a hard task to overthrow. Where the primary facts are not challenged and the judgment is made from the inferences drawn by the judge from the evidence before him, then the Court of Appeal, which has the power to draw any inference of fact it considers to be justified, may more readily interfere with the evaluation of those facts.’
Clarke LJ said: ‘The approach of the court to any particular case will depend upon the nature of the issues kind of case determined by the judge. This has been recognised recently in, for example, Todd v Adams and Chope (trading as Trelawney Fishing Co) [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 293 and Bessant v South Cone Inc [2002] EWCA Civ 763. In some cases the trial judge will have reached conclusions of primary fact based almost entirely upon the view which he formed of the oral evidence of the witnesses. In most cases, however, the position is more complex. In many such cases the judge will have reached his conclusions of primary fact as a result partly of the view he formed of the oral evidence and partly from an analysis of the documents. In other such cases, the judge will have made findings of primary fact based entirely or almost entirely on the documents. Some findings of primary fact will be the result of direct evidence, whereas others will depend upon inference from direct evidence of such facts.
In appeals against conclusions of primary fact the approach of an appellate court will depend upon the weight to be attached to the findings of the judge and that weight will depend upon the extent to which, as the trial judge, the judge has an advantage over the appellate court; the greater that advantage the more reluctant the appellate court should be to interfere. As I see it, that was the approach of the Court of Appeal on a ‘rehearing’ under the Rules of the Supreme Court and should be its approach on a ‘review’ under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.
Some conclusions of fact are, however, not conclusions of primary fact of the kind to which I have just referred. They involve an assessment of a number of different factors which have to be weighed against each other. This is sometimes called an evaluation of the facts and is often a matter of degree upon which different judges can legitimately differ. Such cases may be closely analogous to the exercise of a discretion and, in my opinion, appellate courts should approach them in a similar way.
In Todd’s case [2002] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 293, where the question was whether a contract of service existed, Mance LJ drew a distinction between challenges to conclusions of primary fact or inferences from those facts and an evaluation of those facts, as follows, at p 319-320, para 129:
‘With regard to an appeal to this court (which would never have involved a complete rehearing in that sense), the language of ‘review’ may be said to fit most easily into the context of an appeal against the exercise of a discretion, or an appeal where the court of appeal is essentially concerned with the correctness of an exercise of evaluation or judgment – such as a decision by a lower court whether, weighing all relevant factors, a contract of service existed. However, the references in rule 52.11(3)(4) to the power of an appellate court to allow an appeal where the decision below was ‘wrong’ and to ‘draw any inference of fact which it considers justified on the evidence’ indicate that there are other contexts in which the court of appeal must, as previously, make up its own mind as to the correctness or otherwise of a decision, even on matters of fact, by a lower court. Where the correctness of a finding of primary fact or of inference is in issue, it cannot be a matter of simple discretion how an appellate court approaches the matter. Once the appellant has shown a real prospect (justifying permission to appeal) that a finding or inference is wrong, the role of an appellate court is to determine whether or not this is so, giving full weight of course to the advantages enjoyed by any judge of first instance who has heard oral evidence. In the present case, therefore, I consider that (a) it is for us if necessary to make up our own mind about the correctness or otherwise of any findings of primary fact or inferences from primary fact that the judge made or drew and the claimants challenge, while (b) reminding ourselves that, so far as the appeal raises issues of judgment on unchallenged primary findings and inferences, this court ought not to interfere unless it is satisfied that the judge’s conclusion lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement is possible. In relation to (a) we must, as stated, bear in mind the important and well-recognised reluctance of this court to interfere with a trial judge on any finding of primary fact based on the credibility or reliability of oral evidence. In the present case, however, while there was oral evidence, its content was largely uncontentious.’ . . Neuberger J stressed that the question whether there was a contract of service on the facts involved the weighing up of a series of factors. Thorpe LJ agreed with both judgments.’

Ward, Clarke LJJ, Sir Christopher Staighton
Times 29-Nov-2002, Gazette 23-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1642, [2003] 1 WLR 577, [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 131, [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 140
Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 52.11
England and Wales
Citing:
ExplainedTanfern Ltd v Cameron-MacDonald, Cameron-MacDonald CA 12-May-2000
The court gave detailed guidance on the application of the new procedures on civil appeals in private law cases introduced on May 2. Appeals from a County Court District Judge’s final decision in a multi-track case could now go straight to the Court . .
CitedIn re Grayan Building Services Ltd CA 1995
The degree to which an appellate court will be willing to substitute its own judgment for that of the tribunal will vary with the nature of the question. Hoffmann LJ said: ‘The concept of limited liability and the sophistication of our corporate law . .
CitedSS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack HL 1927
The court discussed the weight to be given by an appellate court to findings of fact made by the court of first instance.
Held: Not to have seen the witnesses puts appellate judges in a permanent position of disadvantage as against the trial . .
CitedThe Ikarian Reefer CA 1995
The court reversed the decision of the trial judge that the plaintiff insured shipowners had not deliberately scuttled their vessel or cast her away: ‘(1) The burden of showing that the trial Judge was wrong lies on the appellant . . (2) When . .
CitedAkerhielm v De Mare PC 1959
A company prospectus contained the following: ‘About a third of the capital has already been subscribed in Denmark.’ Though the directors believed this to be true, it was not true at the time the prospectus was issued.
Held: The statement was . .
CitedTodd and Others v Adams and Another CA 18-Apr-2002
The boat owners had failed to comply with the 1975 safety rules, and seamen died. The boat owners relied upon the restriction on damages in the 1995 Act, and the seamen’s families argued that the failure to apply the safety rules removed that . .
CitedBessant and others v South Cone Incorporated; in re REEF Trade Mark CA 28-May-2002
The Reef pop group applied to register ‘REEF’ for Classes 25 and 26 – e.g. T-shirts, badges, etc. South Cone opposed them as registered proprietors of ‘Reef Brazil’ for the footwear which also was included in Class 25. South’s reputation was . .
CitedMehdi Norowzian v Arks Ltd and Guinness Brewing Worldwide Limited (No 2) CA 11-Nov-1999
The claimant film artist showed a film to an advertising agency, who did not make use of it, but later appeared to use techniques and styles displayed in the film in subsequent material sold to third parties.
Held: A film was protected as a . .
CitedSt Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd CA 1995
The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of ‘inducement’ in the context of insurance contract.
Held: If the three underwriters who gave evidence had been told the truth, on no view would they have underwritten the insurance . .
CitedJEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks, Bloom and Co CA 1981
Accountants prepared audited accounts knowing that the company was in financial difficulties, and the the accounts would be relied upon by the plaintiffs.
Held: The accountants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. They knew that they would . .
CitedSmith v Chadwick HL 18-Feb-1884
Unclear Words Insufficient as Representation
A purchaser claimed to have entered into the contract in reliance on the truth of a misrepresentation by the seller. The plaintiff claimed damages for deceit through having been induced to buy shares in an iron company by false representations in a . .
CitedEdgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .
CitedRedgrave v Hurd CA 1881
The plaintiff, an elderly solicitor wishing to retire, advertised for someone to enter into partnership with him and to buy his house. The defendant responded to the advertisement and negotiations followed, in which the plaintiff stated that the . .
CitedAbrahams v Mediterranean Insurance and Reinsurance Co Ltd 1991
. .
CitedJoyce v Yeomans CA 1981
The court discussed how an appellate court should defer to the assessment of a judge at first instance of the value of an expert witness.
Brandon LJ said: ‘even when dealing with expert witnesses, a trial judge has an advantage over an . .
CitedPan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and Another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd HL 27-Jul-1994
The plaintiff had written long term (tail) insurance. The defendant came to re-insure it. On a dispute there were shown greater losses than had been disclosed, and that this had been known to the Plaintiff.
Held: ‘material circumstance’ which . .
CitedThe Glannibanta CA 1876
‘Now we feel, as strongly as did the Lords of the Privy Council in the cases just referred to [The Julia 14 Moo P.C. 210 and The Alice L.R. 2 P.C. 245], the great weight that is due to the decision of a judge of first instance whenever, in a . .
CitedNocton v Lord Ashburton HL 1914
The defendant solicitor had persuaded his client to release a charge, thus advancing the solicitor’s own subsequent charge on the same property. The action was started in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The statement of claim alleged fraud . .
CitedBiogen Plc v Medeva Plc HL 31-Oct-1996
The claim patented sought to protect a genetic molecule rather than a whole mouse namely that the molecule would, if inserted into a suitable host cell, cause the cell to make antigens of the Hepatitis B virus. A recombinant method of making the . .

Cited by:
CitedMerer v Fisher and Another CA 13-May-2003
A right of pre-emption had misdescribed the property when it was registered. The land was transferred without regard to the right of pre-emption. It was found as a fact that no money passed for the transfer, and the claimants said the unregistered . .
CitedDP Mann and others v Coutts and Co ComC 16-Sep-2003
The claimants were involved in litigation, They took certain steps on the understanding that the respondents had had deposited with them substantial sums in accounts under binding authorities. The bank had written a letter upon which they claim they . .
CitedSinclair Roche and Temperley (A Firm) v Somatra Ltd (Damages) CA 23-Oct-2003
The ‘Somatra’ was lost at sea. The insurance claim had been refused on the basis that the ship was unseaworthy. The owners came to instruct the appellant solicitors to represent them in the insurance claim. Having lost confidence in the solicitors, . .
CitedNiru Battery Manufacturing Company, Bank Sepah Iran v Milestone Trading Limited CA 23-Oct-2003
The claimant had contracted to purchase lead from some of the defendants. There were delays in payment but when funds were made available they should have been repaid. An incorrect bill of lading was presented. The bill certified that the goods had . .
CitedRowland v The Environment Agency CA 19-Dec-2003
The claimant owned a house by the river Thames at Hedsor Water. Public rights of navigation existed over the Thames from time immemorial, and its management lay with the respondent. Landowners at Hedsor had sought to assert that that stretch was now . .
CitedIS Innovative Software Ltd v Howes CA 19-Feb-2004
It was alleged that the defendant had backdated contracts of employment to a time when he had been employed by the claimant, and had induced staff to leave. The company appealed dismissal of its claim.
Held: The advantage of the court . .
CitedHarding v Wealands CA 17-Dec-2004
The claimant sought damages here for a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia. The defendant was working in England. The defendant argued that the law of New South Wales applied.
Held: The general rule in section 11 was not to . .
CitedPrecis (521) Plc v William M Mercer Ltd CA 15-Feb-2005
Purchasers of a company sought to claim in negligence against the respondent actuaries in respect of a valuation of the company’s pension funds.
Held: There was a paucity of authority as to when a duty of care was assumed. The words used and . .
CitedBathurst (As Administrator of the Estate of Michael David Bathurst Deceased) v Scarborow CA 1-Apr-2004
The deceased and defendant had been partners and friends. They had bought a property expressly for the partnership and was conveyed into their names as joint tenants.
Held: The declaration in the partnership was not itself sufficient cogent . .
CitedA v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth CA 12-Apr-2006
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the . .
CitedLondon Borough of Southwark v Kofi-Adu CA 23-Mar-2006
The authority complained that during the course of the trial, the judge had repeatedly intervened during oral evidence.
Held: A judge must be careful not to repeatedly intervene during oral evidence as opposed to counsel making submissions. . .
CitedAIC Ltd v ITS Testing Services (UK) Ltd (‘the Kriti Palm’) CA 28-Nov-2006
The defendant appealed a finding of deceit. Having issued its certificate as to the quality of a cargo of gasoline, it then failed to disclose to the party who had paid it to produce the certificate, information it had which cast doubt on the . .
CitedNorwich Union Insurance Ltd v Meisels and Another QBD 9-Nov-2006
The claimants sought payment for water damage under their policies. The insurer alleged non-disclosure. The judge had found the claimants to be honest, and criticised the defendants witnesses. The claimants had been involved in companies which had . .
ApprovedDatec Electronics Holdings Ltd and others v United Parcels Services Ltd HL 16-May-2007
The defendants had taken on the delivery of a quantity of the claimant’s computers. The equipment reached one depot, but then was lost or stolen. The parties disputed whether the Convention rules applied. UPS said that the claimant had agreed that . .
CitedLondon Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm and Disability Rights Commission CA 25-Jul-2007
The court was asked, whether asked to grant possession against a disabled tenant where the grounds for possession were mandatory. The defendant was a secure tenant with a history of psychiatric disability. He had set out to buy his flat, but the . .
CitedHaw and Another v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court Admn 12-Dec-2007
The defendants appealed convictions for contempt of court, on the basis of having wilfully interrupted the court. The respondent said that no appeal lay.
Held: The statute was ambiguous, and ‘there can be no good reason why a person convicted . .
CitedBarlow Clowes International Ltd and Others v Henwood CA 23-May-2008
The receiver appealed against an order finding that the debtor petitioner was not domiciled here when the order was made. The debtor had a domicile of origin in England, but later acquired on in the Isle of Man. He then acquired a home in Mauritius . .
CitedAli v Birmingham City Council CA 7-Nov-2008
The Council said that it had discharged its duty to house the claimants after they had refused an offer of accommodation, and that decision had been reviewed. The claimant denied receiving a notice under the procedure. The court was asked whether . .
CitedAlford v Cambridgeshire Police CA 24-Feb-2009
The claimant police officer had been held after an accident when he was in a high speed pursuit of a vehicle into the neighbouring respondent’s area. The prosecution had been discontinued, and he now appealed against rejection of his claims for . .
CitedBrennan and others v Sunderland City Council Unison GMB EAT 16-Dec-2008
No Waiver for disclosure of Advice
EAT PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Admissibility of evidence
The claimant sought disclosure of certain legal advice on the basis that its effect, and a summary of its contents, had been put before the court and . .
CitedCharania v Harbour Estates Ltd CA 27-Oct-2009
The defendant appealed against the award of the estate agent’s fees, acting under a sole agency agreement. The agreement had been terminated. A buyer who had seen the property first under the agency later returned and negotiated a purchase.
CitedGarratt v Saxby CA 18-Feb-2004
There had been a Part 36 offer to settle the action. It was disclosed inadvertently to the judge.
Held: There had been no serious procedural irregularity, and fairness and justice did not require a rehearing before different judge. . .
CitedHussain v Hussain and Another CA 23-Oct-2012
The claimant appealed against rejection of his claim for damages after a car accident. The defendants argued that the claim was fraudulent. The defendant driver had been involved in other collisions found to be fraudulent. The claimant appealed . .
CitedDresdner Kleinwort Ltd and Another v Attrill and Others CA 26-Apr-2013
The bank appealed against judgment against it on claims by former senior employees for contractual discretionary bonuses.
Held: The appeal failed. The bank’s unilateral promise made within the context of an existing employment relationship to . .
CitedGladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and Others CA 14-Nov-2013
The claimant appealed against the striking out of his claims for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation as to the suitability for deveopment of two former fire service properties. The court had said that a settlement with co-tortfeasors operated . .
CitedWhitehead v Bruce and Others CA 21-Mar-2013
The three defendants each appealed against apportionment of liability for serious personal injuries incurred in a road traffic accident. The first defendant a motor cycle driver, with the claimant his pillion passenger took suddent action to evade a . .
CitedHome Office v Lowles CA 29-Jul-2004
The defendant appealed against finding of liability. The claimant, an officer ar Armley Prison had been redirected to a side entrance. There was a ramp, but at the top was a two inch step. The parties had disputed the exact circumstances of the . .
CitedPlevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd SC 12-Nov-2014
PPI Sale – No Recovery from Remote Parties
The claimant sought repayment of payment protection insurance premiums paid by her under a policy with Norwich Union. The immediate broker arranging the loan was now insolvent, and she sought repayment from the second and other level intermediaties. . .
CitedFortune and Others v Wiltshire Council and Another CA 20-Mar-2012
The court considered the contnuation of public rights of way against the new system of the ending of certain unrecorded rights.
Held: he appeal failed. ‘As a matter of plain language, section 67(2)(b) does not, in our judgment, require the . .
CitedMichalak v General Medical Council and Others SC 1-Nov-2017
Dr M had successfully challenged her dismissal and recovered damages for unfair dismissal and race discrimination. In the interim, Her employer HA had reported the dismissal to the respondent who continued their proceedings despite the decision in . .
CitedShagang Shipping Company Ltd v HNA Group Company Ltd SC 5-Aug-2020
Allegations had been made that a contract had been procured by bribery. The other party said that the admissions of bribery had been extracted by torture and were inadmissible. The CA had decided that the unproven possibility that it was obtained by . .
CitedActavis Group Ptc EHF and Others v Icos Corporation and Another SC 27-Mar-2019
The court considered: ‘the application of the test of obviousness under section 3 of the Patents Act 1977 to a dosage patent. In summary, a patent, whose validity is not challenged, identified a compound as an efficacious treatment but did not . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules, Professional Negligence, Insurance, Litigation Practice

Leading Case

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.178103

R and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd: SC 27 Mar 2019

The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and claimed an indemnity from the driver. His motor policy covered him, as required in respect of third party claims from any accident involving his car while being driven or used on a public road. His insurer sought a declaration that the policy did not cover the claim against the driver since the policy limited itself to use on roads. The repair did not fall within ‘use’ for the purposes of section 145(3) of the Act. The owner of the repair premises counterclaimed for a declaration that the motorist’s insurer was liable for damage suffered and third parties arising from the fire. The judge granted the declaration sought by the motorist’s insurer but the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the owner of the premises and granted the declaration sought in the counterclaim.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The policy was to be construed so that its third party cover met the RTA requirements>
of the RTA. The certificate did not purport to provide additional cover in itself, and
because the relevant legislation treats a certificate of insurance as distinct from a policy, it is therefore necessary to read words into clause 1a. The CA had gone too far in making the extension to cover the losses.
‘Use’ in EU law is not confined to a road or other public place. It extends to any use of a vehicle as a means of transport. To comply with EU law, Parliament may need to reconsider the wording of the RTA, but the RTA may not be ‘read down’ to comply by excising the words ‘on a road or other public place’ because this would go against the grain and thrust of the legislation. It is therefore the cover required by the RTA, not EU law, that must be read into the policy. In case of such an omission being identified, the Court may adopt a corrective construction, but here such an extension beyond the RTA express provisions but no further.
In this case it was the negligence in the conduct of the repair, not any use of the vehicle which caused the actual damage.

Baroness Hale of Richmond Psc, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge, Lady Arden,Lord Kitchin Jjsc
[2019] UKSC 16, UKSC 2017/0096, [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 793, [2019] 3 All ER 917, [2019] Lloyd’s Rep IR 404, [2019] 2 WLR 1015, [2019] WLR(D) 199, [2020] AC 1025, [2019] RTR 28
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Video Summary, SC 18 Dec 13 am Viudeo, SC 18 Dec 13 pm Video, WLRD
Road Traffic Act 1988
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPfeiffer v Deutsches Rotes Kreuz, Kreisverband Waldshut eV (1) ECJ 5-Oct-2004
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling: Arbeitsgericht Lorrach – Germany. Social policy – Protection of the health and safety of workers – Directive 93/104/EC – Scope – Emergency workers in attendance in . .
CitedChartbrook Ltd v Persimmon Homes Ltd and Others HL 1-Jul-2009
Mutual Knowledge admissible to construe contract
The parties had entered into a development contract in respect of a site in Wandsworth, under which balancing compensation was to be paid. They disagreed as to its calculation. Persimmon sought rectification to reflect the negotiations.
Held: . .
CitedVnuk v Zavarovalnica Triglav DD ECJ 26-Feb-2014
ECJ Opinion – Automobile Liability Insurance – Concept of ‘vehicular’ – Accident caused by a tractor with a trailer during harvest bales of hay in a barn . .
ApproveeLister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd CA 1956
Where an employer is found vicariously liable for an employee’s actions, they are entitled to recover an indemnity from them, to cover such losses.
Held: An accident which occurred in the yard of a slaughterhouse did not arise out of use on . .
CitedInman v Kenny and Another CA 12-Jan-2001
The claimant was sat below an embankment. A motorcycle driven by the defendant left the path at the top of the embankment landing on her causing serious injuries. . .
CitedLewis v Tindale and Others QBD 14-Sep-2018
The court was asked as to the liability of the Motor Insurer’s Bureau for an accident not occurring on a public road.
Held: Soole J said that section 145 should not be read down, because reading down would go against the grain and thrust of . .
CitedRoadPeace v Secretary of State for Transport Admn 7-Nov-2017
RoadPeace challenged certain legislation, as to compulsory insurance for motor vehicles, and for payment of compensation for personal injury and damages caused by uninsured driver, saying that it failed properly to implement European law.
At First InstanceUK Insurance Ltd v Holden QBD 2017
The car owner was repairing his car, but his negligence caused a fire which extended to a neighbour’s property. The insurance companies sought declarations as to liability under his road traffic insurance policy. . .
Appeal from (CA)UK Insurance Ltd v Rands Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) CA 12-Apr-2017
. .
CitedElliott v Grey QBD 1959
The defendant had left his car on the roadway. It was raised on bricks, and the battery was removed. He appealed his conviction for it not being insured.
Held: The conviction was correct. The acts of the defendant fell within the mischief of . .
CitedClarke v Kato and Others; Cutter v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL 25-Nov-1998
Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and . .
CitedPumbien v Vines QBD 14-Jun-1995
A car on left on the road is used for MOT and insurance purposes even though it might be immobilized. . .
CitedBrown v Roberts 1965
The statutory concept of ‘use’ where a vehicle is parked but not lawfully drivable is that the owner has an element of control, management or operation of the vehicle while it is on the road . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Road Traffic, European

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.635122

Hebdon v West: 13 Feb 1863

Hebdon claimed under a policy with ILA in the sum of pounds 2500 on the life of X. Hebdon was employed in a bank of which X was the senior and managing partner. In 1855 Hebdon was employed on a seven-year contract at pounds 600 a year. He also owed the bank pounds 4700 on loans. X had assured Hebdon that during X’s life Hebdon would not be called upon to repay the loan. Hebdon, with X’s permission, in 1856, insured X’s life with another company (CGLI) for pounds 5000 so as to provide against the loan. 12 months later, the debt having increased to pounds 6000, Hebdon took out the policy with ILA which was the subject of the proceedings. X died in 1861. CGLI paid pounds 5000 which Hebdon paid to the bank. ILA contended that Hebdon had no interest in X’s life within the meaning of the 1774 Act or that his interest was less than the pounds 2500 so that he should recover less pursuant to section 3.
Held: There was no insurable interest at all in X’s assurance that the loan would not be called because there was no consideration for the assurance and it was not therefore a binding agreement such as could be ‘considered as a pecuniary or indeed any appreciable interest in the life of X’. There was an insurable interest in Hebdon’s salary (for 5 more years at pounds 600 a year) at the time the policy was effected, and so in a sum in excess of the value of the ILA policy, but nonetheless that because the value of that interest had been paid by CGLI Hebdon could recover nothing by virtue of section 3 of the Act. The ‘question’ which arose was whether the payment of pounds 5000 by CGLI ‘is a bar to the plaintiff’s claim by virtue of [Section 3] it being taken as a fact that the pounds 5000 included all the insurable interest that the plaintiff had at the time of making both policies; in fact that the interest of the plaintiff at the time of making the insurance with the defendant was the same as that which he had when he made the insurance with [CGLI] . . . It was said that . . the object of the statute would be defeated, as a small amount of insurable interest might be made the foundation for a great number of insurances, each to the amount of the whole interest of the insured . . .’ The court referred to the use of the words ‘insurer or insurers’ in section 3 as an indication that recovery could only be made once (rejecting, to my mind, a compelling submission that the use of the plural contemplated several insurers on one policy) ‘Looking to the declared object of the legislature, we are of the opinion that though, upon a life policy, the insurable interest at the time of the making the policy, and not the interest at the time of death, is to be considered, it was intended by the 3rd section of the Act that the insured should in no case recover or receive from the insurers (whether upon one policy or many) more than the insurable interest which the person making the insurance had at the time he insured the life. If for greater security he thinks fit to insure with many persons and by different contracts of insurance, and to pay the premiums upon each policy, he is at liberty to do so, but he can only recover or receive upon the whole the amount of his insurable interest, and if he has received the whole amount from one insurer he is precluded by the terms of the 3rd section of the statute from recovering or receiving any more from the others. Any argument arising from the supposed hardship of allowing the insurers in such a case to receive and retain the premiums without being obliged to pay the consideration for which such premiums were paid, would be equally applicable to the case of marine assurances, upon which, however many policies there may be, the underwriters are only liable to the extent of the value insured.’

Wightman J
(1863) 3 B and S 579, [1863] EngR 272
Comonlii
Insurance Act 1774 3
England and Wales
Cited by:
DistinguishedFeasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey ComC 17-May-2002
The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.180086

UK Insurance Ltd v Holden: QBD 2017

The car owner was repairing his car, but his negligence caused a fire which extended to a neighbour’s property. The insurance companies sought declarations as to liability under his road traffic insurance policy.

[2017] QB 1357
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromUK Insurance Ltd v Rands Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) CA 12-Apr-2017
. .
At First InstanceR and S Pilling (T/A Phoenix Engineering) v UK Insurance Ltd SC 27-Mar-2019
The driver’s car failed its MOT., He took it to private premises to repair. In those repairs, inflammable materials ignited and the fire spread those premises and adjoining third party premises. The premise’ insurers paid the owners of both and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 23 January 2022; Ref: scu.671591

Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey: ComC 17 May 2002

The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The insurance company declined to pay out under the Act.
Held: The purpose of the Act was to prevent gaming with life policies, by ensuring that the policy owner had an interest in the event insured. The court should consider only whether the insurable interest it had found for section 1, had been insured in a manner which could be characterized as gaming or wagering at the time of the insurance contract.

Mr Justice Langley
Times 17-Jun-2002, Gazette 11-Jul-2002, [2002] EWHC 868 (Commercial), [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 807, [2002] 2 All ER (Comm) 492
Bailii
Life Assurance Act 1774 1 2
England and Wales
Citing:
AppliedDalby v The India and London Life Assurance Company HL 9-May-1851
An insurance company (Anchor) had taken out insurance with the defendant on the life of the Duke of Cambridge in the sum of pounds 1000 for which it paid a yearly premium during the life of the Duke. Anchor had itself granted policies of insurance . .
DistinguishedHebdon v West 13-Feb-1863
Hebdon claimed under a policy with ILA in the sum of pounds 2500 on the life of X. Hebdon was employed in a bank of which X was the senior and managing partner. In 1855 Hebdon was employed on a seven-year contract at pounds 600 a year. He also owed . .
Appealed toFeasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey CA 26-Jun-2003
A policy providing a fixed level of benefit, calculated according to the degree of injury could not be avoided under the 1744 Act on the basis that the insured had no insurable interest. The insurance company said the company had no insurable . .
CitedLucena v Craufurd HL 1806
Before the declaration of war, against the United Provinces, His Majesty’s ships took possession of several ships belonging to Dutch East India men, and took them to St Helena. The Commissioners then insured the ships for their journey from St . .
CitedPaterson v Powell 1832
The purpose of the 1774 Act was to prevent ‘gaming’ in the disguise of insurance and in the sense of gambling on the outcome of an uncertain event in which the ‘assured’ had no interest save for the interest created by the very gamble or agreement . .
CitedStock v Inglis CA 1884
Buyers of sugar to whom the risk of loss of the sugar but not the property in it had passed had an insurable interest.
Held: ‘Nobody can deny that this is a case of extreme difficulty and of great nicety. In my opinion it is the duty of a . .
CitedMacaura v Northern Assurance Company Limited HL 1925
Macaura owned the large majority of shares in a limited company, trading in timber. The company also owed him substantial sums. He kept on the insurance of timber and other assets within the business but in his own name. When he came to claim, his . .
CitedMark Rowlands v Berni Inns Ltd CA 1985
The plaintiff owned the freehold and had let the basement to the defendant. The plaintiff insured the building. The defendant covenanted to pay to the plaintiff an insurance rent equal to the proportionate cost of insuring the part of the building . .
CitedDeepak Fertilisers v ICI Chemicals CA 1991
P’s methanol plant had been constructed with the use of know-how and services supplied by D. Following completion the plant exploded. The plaintiff sued D for negligence and breach of contract. The plaintiff had undertaken to indemnify D against . .
CitedSharp v Sphere Drake Insurance plc (The Moonacre) 1992
S, a retired businessman, had bought a vessel and insured it in his name, but registered it in the name of company, R. In the winter, the boat was laid up, but occupied by a workman who maintained it and kept it secure. The boat was destroyed by a . .
CitedSiu Yin Kwan and Another v Eastern Insurance Co Ltd PC 16-Dec-1993
Insurers are liable to undisclosed principals on an indemnity policy, provided it was made with the range of their authority. The claim arose out of the death of two seamen on their employers’ vessel but the employers were not named in the relevant . .
CitedAnderson v Morice 1875
A purchaser of a cargo was held to have no insurable interest in the cargo itself until the risk had passed to him on completion of loading. The only possible insurable interest was on the profits from sale of the cargo but not on the cargo itself . .
CitedGlengate-KG Properties Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd and Others CA 12-Jan-1996
NU the insurer of a consequential loss insurance policy, appealed against the decision, on a claim brought by G, the owners of a property under redevelopment, which had suffered a fire as to G’s resultant loss of rental income from the property. The . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromFeasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey CA 26-Jun-2003
A policy providing a fixed level of benefit, calculated according to the degree of injury could not be avoided under the 1744 Act on the basis that the insured had no insurable interest. The insurance company said the company had no insurable . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.173989

Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro S A Petrobras and others: ComC 18 Feb 2003

Tomlinson J
[2003] EWHC 179 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoPetromec Inc and Petroleo Brasileiro S A Petrobras, Braspetro Oil Services Company v Petromec Inc, Petro-Deep Inc, Maritima Petroleo E Engenharia Ltda QBD 2-Feb-2004
The parties entered into a complex group of inter-related contracts for the purpose of purchasing and upgrading an oil production platform for use by Petrobras in the South Marlim oilfield. At a very early stage it was agreed that the upgrade . .

Cited by:
See alsoPetromec Inc and Petroleo Brasileiro S A Petrobras, Braspetro Oil Services Company v Petromec Inc, Petro-Deep Inc, Maritima Petroleo E Engenharia Ltda QBD 2-Feb-2004
The parties entered into a complex group of inter-related contracts for the purpose of purchasing and upgrading an oil production platform for use by Petrobras in the South Marlim oilfield. At a very early stage it was agreed that the upgrade . .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras, Braspetro Oil Services Company, Societa Armamento Navi Appoggio Spa, Den Norske Bank Asa CA 17-Feb-2004
. .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobrasbraspetro Oil Services etc ComC 20-May-2004
. .
See AlsoPetromec Inc Petro-Deep Inc and others v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa and others CA 15-Jul-2005
. .
See AlsoPetroleo Brasileiro SA and Another v Petromec Inc and others ComC 3-Nov-2005
. .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petroleo Brasiliero Sa Petrobras and Another ComC 16-Jun-2006
. .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras CA 19-Jul-2006
A Mr Efremovich, a third party to the action was ordered to pay the costs of Petrobras and Brasoil which on the failure of its claim against them had been ordered to be paid by Petromec. The judge found that Mr Efromovich controlled the proceedings . .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others ComC 7-Dec-2006
. .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petrobras ComC 11-May-2007
Defendant’s application for security for costs. . .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Etroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others ComC 6-Jul-2007
. .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras and others CA 21-Dec-2007
. .
See AlsoPetromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro Sa Petrobras and others CA 23-Jan-2008
Short order. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.179523

Dalby v The India and London Life Assurance Company: HL 9 May 1851

An insurance company (Anchor) had taken out insurance with the defendant on the life of the Duke of Cambridge in the sum of pounds 1000 for which it paid a yearly premium during the life of the Duke. Anchor had itself granted policies of insurance to a Reverend Wright on the Duke’s life in a total amount of pounds 3000. Anchor’s policy with the Defendant was ‘a cross or counter-assurance’. Before the Duke died Anchor agreed with the Reverend Wright to the surrender and cancellation of his policies in return for an annuity. The issue was whether or not it sufficed that Anchor had an interest in the Duke’s life when the policy with the Defendant was effected or whether such an interest had to subsist at the time of the Duke’s death. No one seems to have bothered with questions whether or not the Reverend Wright had an interest in the Duke’s life.
Held: It was sufficient for the interest to exist at the time the insurance was effected and that its value at that time was recoverable under Section 3. The obligation at that time to pay the Reverend Wright was ‘unquestionably an interest in the continuance of the life of the Duke’ under Section 3.
Parke B said: ‘Now, what is the meaning of this provision? On the part of the plaintiff, it is said it means only, that, in all cases in which the party insuring has an interest when he effects the policy, his right to recover and receive is to be limited to that amount; otherwise, under colour of a small interest, a wagering policy might be made to a large amount, – as it might if the first clause stood alone. The right to recover, therefore, is limited to the amount of the interest at the time of effecting the policy. Upon that value, the assured must have the amount of premium calculated: if he states it truly, no difficulty can occur: he pays in the annuity for life the fair value of the sum payable at death. If he misrepresents, by over-rating the value of the interest, it is his own fault, in paying more in the way of annuity than he ought; and he can recover only the true value of the interest in respect of which he effected the policy: but that value he can recover. Thus, the liability of the insurer becomes constant and uniform, to pay an unvarying sum on the death of the cestui que vie, in consideration of an unvarying and uniform premium paid by the assured. The bargain is fixed as to the amount on both sides. This construction is effected by reading the word ‘hath’ as referring to the time of effecting the policy. By the 1st section, the assured is prohibited from effecting an insurance on a life or on an event wherein he ‘shall have’ no interest, – that is, at the time of assuring: and then the 3rd section requires that he shall recover only the interest that he ‘hath’. If he has an interest when the policy is made, he is not wagering or gaming, and the prohibition of the statute does not apply to his case. Had the 3rd section provided that no more than the amount or value of the interest should be insured, a question might have been raised, whether, if the insurance had been for a larger amount, the whole would not have been void: but the prohibition to recover or receive more than that amount, obviates any difficulty on that head.’

Parke B
(1854) 15 CB 364, [1843-60] All ER Rep 1040, [1851] EngR 463, (1851) 4 De G and Sm 462, (1851) 64 ER 913
Commonlii
Insurance Act 1774 3
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedFeasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey ComC 17-May-2002
The fact that there was more than one insurance policy in place for the same interest would not preclude a claim under one of them. A mutual underwriting group insured members against personal injury and so forth through ‘lineslip’ policies. The . .
CitedParry v Cleaver HL 5-Feb-1969
PI Damages not Reduced for Own Pension
The plaintiff policeman was disabled by the negligence of the defendant and received a disablement pension. Part had been contributed by himself and part by his employer.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal succeeded. Damages for personal injury were . .
CitedBradburn v Great Western Rail Co CEC 1874
The plaintiff had received a sum of money from a private insurer to compensate him for lost income as a result of an accident caused by the negligence of the defendant.
Held: He was entitled to full damages as well as the payment from the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Damages

Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.180087

HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited and others v Chase Manhattan Bank and others: HL 20 Feb 2003

The insurance company had paid claims on policies used to underwrite the production of TV films. The re-insurers resisted the claims against them by the insurers on the grounds of non-disclosure by the insured, or in the alternative damages for misrepresentation. The policies were novel and sophisticated contracts and included clauses modifying the duties of disclosure by inclusion of a ‘truth of statement clause’. The clause appeared expressly not to require any representation as to the financial viabillity of the projected films, and to avoid liability for any misrepresentation made to the insurers. In this case the insurers sought to rely upon representations of the insurers themselves.
Held: The clause was intended to excuse a wide range of misrepresentation, but the law, on public policy grounds, does not permit a contracting party to exclude liability for his own fraud in inducing the making of the contract. Express and clear words were needed to avoid the consequences of fraudulent misrepresentation by a party’s agent and ‘it is extraordinarily unlikely that parties to a contract will agree a term which excludes liability for fraud with sufficient clarity to raise squarely the question of whether it should be lawful to do so’. The insurers were entitled to damages or to avoid the contract for fraudulent misrepresentation or fraudulent non-disclosure by the agent. Lord Hoffmann said that discussions about the effect and nature of the precise words used by law lords in either agreeing, entirely agreeing or concurring in the words of others amounted to an exercise which had ‘more in common with reading tea leaves than with legal reasoning’.

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Steyn, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough, Lord Scott of Foscote
[2003] UKHL 6, [2003] 1 All ER Comm 349, [2003] 2 Lloyd’s Law Reports 61, [2004] ICR 1708, [2003] Lloyds Rep IR 230, [2003] 1 CLC 358
House of Lords, Bailii
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHIH Casualty And General Insurance Limited and Others v The Chase Manhattan Bank and Others CA 31-Jul-2001
Parties syndicating finance for a film obtained the security of an insurance which is designed to pay up to the sum insured, if the revenues generated by the film were insufficient to repay the loan finance plus associated expenses. The polices were . .
CitedCanada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King PC 21-Jan-1952
A lease of a freight shed exonerated the lessor from ‘any claim . . for . . damage . . to . . Goods . . being . . in the said shed’ and requiring the lessee to indemnify the lessor ‘from and against all claims’. The negligent use of an oxy-acetylene . .
CitedLazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley CA 1956
There was a privative clause in the 1954 Act. A landlord’s declaration under the Act that work of a specified value, supporting an increase in rent, had been carried out on leased premises, could not be questioned after 28 days of its service on the . .
CitedSociete Anonyme d’Intermediaries Luxembourgeois v Farex Gie CA 1995
The court considered the duty of disclosure impsed upon an insured: ‘Why should it be a breach of good faith sufficient to deprive the assured of his contract if the agent fails to disclose something which, had the assured known of it, would not . .
CitedWeir v Bell 1878
‘I think that every person who authorizes another to act for him in the making of any contract, undertakes for the absence of fraud in that person in the execution of the authority given, as much as he undertakes for its absence in himself when he . .
CitedS Pearson and Son Ltd v Dublin Corporation HL 1907
A clause in a building contract provided that the contractor should satisfy himself as to the dimensions, levels and nature of all existing works. Did this exclude an action based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations by the council’s engineers . .
CitedBanque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd CA 1990
A loan was to be made. An agent of the borrower came to know of the fraudulent nature of the loan, but said nothing.
Held: A failure to disclose a known fraud may itself amount to a misrepresentation, but nondisclosure (whether dishonest or . .
CitedPan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and Another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd HL 27-Jul-1994
The plaintiff had written long term (tail) insurance. The defendant came to re-insure it. On a dispute there were shown greater losses than had been disclosed, and that this had been known to the Plaintiff.
Held: ‘material circumstance’ which . .
CitedPCW Syndicate v PCW Reinsurers CA 8-Sep-1995
A policy was not avoided by the agent’s failure to disclose his own dishonesty with the principal. In this area there was no difference between the law of Marine Insurance and other insurances. . .
CitedBlackburn, Low and Co v Vigors HL 1887
There was a condition precedent of full disclosure of material facts in an insurance contract. The duty of an agent to disclose circumstances within his own knowledge to the insurer is independent of the duty of the insured to make disclosure, but: . .
CitedHollier v Rambler Motors (AMC) Ltd CA 19-Nov-1971
The plaintiff left his car with the defendant garage for repair. Whilst there it was substantially damaged by fire. The defendant sought to rely upon their terms which would negative liability, saying that the terms had been incorporated by . .
CitedAilsa Craig Fishing Co Ltd v Malvern Fishing Co Ltd HL 26-Nov-1981
Even though a shipowner who had carried cargo on deck was not entitled to rely on the exceptions to liability in his contract, a limitation clause was different and should not be construed by reference to the specially exacting standards applicable . .
CitedGillespie Bros and Co Ltd v Roy Bowles Transport Ltd CA 1973
The court looked at how it should construe the Canada Steamship guidelines with regard to an exemption clause absolving one party of responsibility for negligence. There was a express reference to negligence by the words ‘save harmless and keep . . . .
CitedSmith v UMB Chrysler (Scotland) Ltd HL 9-Nov-1977
The principles set out in Canada Steamship apply to ‘clauses which purport to exempt one party to a contract from liability’. The principles should be applied without ‘mechanistic construction’.
Lord Keith of Kinkel said: The tests were . .
CitedNational Westminster Bank v Utrecht-America Finance Company CA 10-May-2001
An agreement between the parties for assignment or novation of a credit agreement, contained a ‘take out’ agreement (‘TOA’). The defendant began proceedings in California to rescind the agreement, and the claimants obtained summary judgement under . .
CitedGeorge Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd CA 1982
It would not be fair or reasonable to allow seed merchants to rely on a clause limiting their liability for defective seeds. It was relevant that, in the course of dealing, the seed merchants ‘rarely, if ever, invoke the clause’.
Kerr LJ said: . .
CitedToomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd (No 2) QBD 1995
Applying Canada Steamship Lines Ltd v The King, Colman J said: ‘Notwithstanding the commercial purpose of this transaction, the correct approach, as a matter of construction, is to conclude that in fact the effect of cl (a) is only to exclude the . .
CitedToomey v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd CA 1994
The word ‘reinsurance’ is often used loosely simply to describe any contract of insurance which is placed by or for the benefit of an insurer, but it should be construed more properly to require the insurance of an insurable interest in the subject . .
CitedLee v Jones CCP 1864
Jones had guaranteed to Lee payment of any balance due to them by their agent Packer. Jones sought to set aside the guarantee on ground of fraud by Lee. The fraud alleged was the failure of Lee to disclose that Packer had not properly accounted to . .
CitedRivaz v Gerussi Brothers and Co CA 1880
Underwriters were held entitled to avoid insurance policies because of concealment of the undervalue of the insured shipments. Brett LJ said: ‘Here it was not only a concealment, but a fraudulent concealment, for the matter concealed was kept back . .
CitedBanque Keyser Ullmann SA v Skandia (UK) Insurance Co Ltd HL 1991
Banks had made loans against property which the borrower had said was valuable, and, also insurance policies against any shortfall on the realisation of the property. The borrower was a swindler and the property worthless. The insurers relied upon a . .
CitedGluckstein v Barnes; Re Olympia Ltd, ex parte Gluckstein HL 1900
Directors’ hidden profits disclosable
Promoters of a company had acquired a property intending its resale through the sale of shares in the company. In doing so the original directors made a substantial profit which they did not disclose (though it was discoverable). The company became . .
CitedBrownlie v Campbell; Brownlie v Miller HL 1880
Silence where there is a duty to speak, may amount to a misrepresentation. Lord Blackburn said: ‘where there is a duty or an obligation to speak, and a man in breach of that duty or obligation holds his tongue and does not speak, and does not say . .
CitedMackender v Feldia AG CA 1966
A clause provided that an insurance policy should be governed by Belgian law and that ‘any disputes arising thereunder shall be exclusively subject to Belgian jurisdiction.’ The underwriters avoided the contract for non-disclosure of material facts . .
CitedBlackburn, Low and Co v Vigors CA 1886
Lord Esher MR: ‘This seems to me to be the true doctrine. The freedom from mis-representation or concealment is a condition precedent to the right of the assured to insist on the performance of the contract, so that on a failure of the performance . .
CitedHeyman v Darwins Limited HL 1942
An arbitration clause will survive a repudiatory breach: ‘I agree with the Lord Chancellor in thinking that the true ground of the decision in Jureidini v National British and Irish Millers Insurance Co Ltd was the narrowness of the field of . .
CitedLazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley CA 1956
There was a privative clause in the 1954 Act. A landlord’s declaration under the Act that work of a specified value, supporting an increase in rent, had been carried out on leased premises, could not be questioned after 28 days of its service on the . .

Cited by:
CitedDunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council CA 11-Feb-2004
Compensation for non-economic loss brought about by the manner of an unfair dismissal is, on authority and on principle, recoverable. The award of such compensation by the employment tribunal in the present case was not excessive and was adequately . .
CitedFrans Maas (Uk) Ltd v Samsung Electronics (Uk) Ltd ComC 30-Jun-2004
A large volume of mobile phones were stolen from a warehouse. The owner claimed damages from the bailee. The defendant said that standard terms applied limiting their responsibility to value calculated by weight.
Held: There was a bailment . .
CitedSaggar v Ministry of Defence EAT 25-May-2004
Three Defence employees sought to bring claims of variously race and sex discrimination against the Ministry. In each case their services were provided almost entirely abroad, and the defendant argued that there was no jurisdiction to hear the case, . .
CitedAdvanced Industrial Technology Corporation Ltd v Bond Street Jewellers Ltd CA 4-Jul-2006
The claimant left a valuable necklace with the defendant jewellers for sale. The jewellers fell into financial difficulties, and the director gave the necklace as security for a loan to the company. The jeweller failed to maintain payments on the . .
CitedRegus (UK) Ltd v Epcot Solutions Ltd CA 15-Apr-2008
The appellant had contracted to provide office accomodation to the defendant. The air conditioning did not work and there were other defects. The appellant now challenged a finding of liability and that its contract terms which were said to totally . .
CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .
CitedLB Holdings Intermediate 2 Ltd, The Joint Administrators of v Lehman Brothers International (Europe), The Joint Administrators of and Others SC 17-May-2017
In the course of the insolvent administration of the bank, substantial additional sums were received. Parties appealed against some orders made on the application to court for directions as to what was to be done with the surplus.
Held: The . .
CitedTakhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd and Others SC 20-Mar-2019
The claimant appellant alleged that properties she owned were transferred to the first defendant under undue influence or other unconscionable conduct by the second and third defendants. The claim was dismissed. Three years later she claimed to set . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Media, Contract

Leading Case

Updated: 21 January 2022; Ref: scu.179502

In re Leslie; Leslie v French: ChD 1883

The court gave guidance as to the circumstances in which an individual who had paid a premium on a policy belonging to someone else could claim an interest in the policy: ‘In my opinion a lien may be created upon the moneys secured by a policy by payment of premiums in the following cases: First. By contract with the beneficial owner of the policy. Secondly. By reasons of the right of trustees to an indemnity out of their trust property for money expended by them in its preservation. Thirdly. By subrogation to this right of trustees of some person who may at their request have advanced money for the preservation of the property. Fourthly. By reason of the right vested in mortgagees, or other persons having a charge upon the policy, to add to their charge any moneys which have been paid by them to preserve the property . .’ And ‘except under the circumstances to which I have referred, no lien is created by the payment of the premiums by a mere stranger or by a part owner’.

Justice Fry
(1883) 23 ChD 552
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedFoskett v McKeown and Others CA 27-Jun-1997
Various people had paid money with the promise of acquiring an interest in land in Portugal. The scheme was fraudulent. The funds had been used to purchase a life/investment policy. The policy was held in trust for the fraudster’s mother but he had . .
CitedStrutt v Tippett CA 1890
The list set out in re Leslie for the ways in which one person might claim an interest in an insurance policy in another’s name, was not exhaustive. . .
CitedFoskett v McKeown and Others HL 18-May-2000
A property developer using monies which he held on trust to carry out a development instead had mixed those monies with his own in his bank account, and subsequently used those mixed monies to pay premiums on a life assurance policy on his own life, . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Equity

Updated: 20 January 2022; Ref: scu.187411

St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd: CA 1995

The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of ‘inducement’ in the context of insurance contract.
Held: If the three underwriters who gave evidence had been told the truth, on no view would they have underwritten the insurance at the same premium on terms which included subsidence risk. The court also considered the role played by presumption that if the recipient had known the truth, he would still have been willing to make the contract, but only on different terms, notably, but not only as to premium. ‘The existence of such a presumption is recognised in the authorities (Halsbury’s Laws vol 31 par 1067) ‘Inducement cannot be inferred in law from proved materiality, although there may be cases where the materiality is so obvious as to justify an inference of fact that the representee was actually induced, but, even in such exceptional cases, the inference is only a prima facie one and may be rebutted by counter evidence.’ ‘ and there is ‘the need to distinguish ‘materiality’ from ‘inducement’, although inevitably the two overlap. Here, the evidence of the three underwriters who did give evidence and of the expert witnesses was clear. If the underwriters had been told the true state of the ground conditions, as revealed by the 1982 report, and of the conflicting views expressed by the authors of that report and by Worleys, then they would have called for further information and in all probability either refused the risk or accepted it on different terms. In fact, all four underwriters including Mr Earnshaw accepted it without any relevant enquiries. There is no evidence to displace a presumption that Mr Earnshaw like the other three was induced by the non-disclosure or misrepresentation to give cover on the terms on which he did. In my judgment, these insurers also have discharged their burden of proof.’

Evans LJ
[1995] 2 Lloyds Rep 116
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedEdgington v Fitzmaurice CA 7-Mar-1885
False Prospectus – Issuers liable in Deceit
The directors of a company issued a prospectus, falsely stating that the proceeds were to be used to complete alterations to the buildings of the company, to purchase horses and vans and to develop the trade of the company. In fact it was to pay off . .
CitedSmith v Chadwick HL 18-Feb-1884
Unclear Words Insufficient as Representation
A purchaser claimed to have entered into the contract in reliance on the truth of a misrepresentation by the seller. The plaintiff claimed damages for deceit through having been induced to buy shares in an iron company by false representations in a . .

Cited by:
CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
CitedMundi v Lincoln Assurance Ltd ChD 24-Nov-2005
The defendant life insurance company sought to avoid payment alleging non-disclosure. At first they suggested first one then a second and then a third reason for non payment as each previous reason looked like failing. They relied now on . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.187265

Mundi v Lincoln Assurance Ltd: ChD 24 Nov 2005

The defendant life insurance company sought to avoid payment alleging non-disclosure. At first they suggested first one then a second and then a third reason for non payment as each previous reason looked like failing. They relied now on non-disclosure of excessive drinking. The policy had lapsed and been re-instated.
Held: The non-disclosure of the drinking with the treatment recommended was material. The court had to look whether the inducement was in fact relied upon by the insurer. The evidence suggested here that the company had done so, and the company was entitled to avoid the policy.

[2005] EWHC 2678 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSmith v Chadwick HL 18-Feb-1884
Unclear Words Insufficient as Representation
A purchaser claimed to have entered into the contract in reliance on the truth of a misrepresentation by the seller. The plaintiff claimed damages for deceit through having been induced to buy shares in an iron company by false representations in a . .
CitedSt Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd CA 1995
The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of ‘inducement’ in the context of insurance contract.
Held: If the three underwriters who gave evidence had been told the truth, on no view would they have underwritten the insurance . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.235540

Smith v Chadwick: HL 18 Feb 1884

Unclear Words Insufficient as Representation

A purchaser claimed to have entered into the contract in reliance on the truth of a misrepresentation by the seller. The plaintiff claimed damages for deceit through having been induced to buy shares in an iron company by false representations in a prospectus as to the output of the iron works.
Held: His claim failed because the critical words of the prospectus were ambiguous, and the plaintiff had failed to show that he understood them in a sense which was false.
An inference of inducement can be made or rebutted on evidence. Lord Blackburn, said: ‘I think if it is proved that the defendants with a view to induce the plaintiff to enter a contract made a statement to the plaintiff of such a nature as would be likely to induce a person to enter into a contract, and it is proved that the plaintiff did enter into the contract, it is a fair inference of fact that he was induced to do so by the statement.’
. . and ‘In Pasley v Freeman, 2 Smith’s Leading Cases 66, 73, 86 (8th ed), Buller J says: ‘The foundation of this action is fraud and deceit in the defendant and damage to the plaintiffs. And the question is whether an action thus founded can be sustained in a court of law. Fraud without damage, or damage without fraud, gives no cause of action, but where these two concur an action lies, per Croke J, 3 Bulst 95.’
Whatever difficulties there may be as to defining what is fraud and deceit, I think no one will venture to dispute that the plaintiff cannot recover unless he proves damage. In an ordinary action of deceit the plaintiff alleges that false and fraudulent representations were made by the defendant to the plaintiff in order to induce him, the plaintiff, to act upon them. I think that if he did act upon these representations, he shews damage; if he did not, he shews none.’
Lord Selborne LC said: ‘My Lords, I conceive that in an action of deceit, like the present, it is the duty of the plaintiff to establish two things; first, actual fraud, which is to be judged by the nature and character of the representations made, considered with reference to the object for which they were made, the knowledge or means of knowledge of the person making them, and the intention which the law justly imputes to every man to produce those consequences which are the natural result of his acts: and, secondly, he must establish that this fraud was an inducing cause to the contract; for which purpose it must be material, and it must have produced in his mind an erroneous belief, influencing his conduct.’

Lord Blackburn, Lord Selborne LC
(1884) 9 App Cas 187, (1883-1884) 9 App Cas 187, [1884] UKLawRpAC 4
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAssicurazioni Generali Spa v Arab Insurance Group (BSC) CA 13-Nov-2002
Rehearing/Review – Little Difference on Appeal
The appellant asked the Court to reverse a decision on the facts reached in the lower court.
Held: The appeal failed (Majority decision). The court’s approach should be the same whether the case was dealt with as a rehearing or as a review. . .
CitedSpice Girls Ltd v Aprilia World Service Bv ChD 24-Feb-2000
Disclosure Duties on those entering into contract
The claimants worked together as a five girl pop group. The defendants had signed a sponsorship agreement, but now resisted payment saying that one of the five, Geri, had given notice to leave the group, substantially changing what had been . .
CitedSt Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co (UK) Ltd v McConnell Dowell Constructors Ltd CA 1995
The court discussed the general principles as to the meaning of ‘inducement’ in the context of insurance contract.
Held: If the three underwriters who gave evidence had been told the truth, on no view would they have underwritten the insurance . .
CitedMundi v Lincoln Assurance Ltd ChD 24-Nov-2005
The defendant life insurance company sought to avoid payment alleging non-disclosure. At first they suggested first one then a second and then a third reason for non payment as each previous reason looked like failing. They relied now on . .
CitedHayward v Zurich Insurance Company Plc SC 27-Jul-2016
The claimant had won a personal injury case and the matter had been settled with a substantial payout by the appellant insurance company. The company now said that the claimant had grossly exaggerated his injury, and indeed wasfiully recovered at . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance, Torts – Other

Updated: 19 January 2022; Ref: scu.187266

AAS Balta v UAB Grifs AG: ECJ 27 Feb 2020

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Judicial cooperation in civil matters – Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 – Article 15, point 5, and Article 16, point 5 -‘ Major risks ‘insurance – Jurisdiction clause concluded between the policyholder and the insurer – Enforceability of this clause against the insured person

C-803/18, [2020] EUECJ C-803/18
Bailii
European

Insurance

Updated: 17 January 2022; Ref: scu.654755

Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE v Western Trading Ltd: CA 11 Oct 2016

The court was asked whether a company, insured under a policy providing cover against fire, is, or may be, entitled to an indemnity consisting of the cost of reinstatement after the building insured was destroyed by fire.

Laws, Lewison, Christopher Clarke LJJ
[2016] EWCA Civ 1003
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 16 January 2022; Ref: scu.570111

Stoomvaart Maatsohappij Sophie H v Merchants’ Marine Insurance Co Ltd: HL 20 Nov 1919

A ship was lost owing to encountering mines supposed to have broken loose from Russian minefields protecting the Finnish coast. Under insurance policies the ship was covered against marine risks and damage from explosions, but the insurers were exempt in the case of ‘capture, seizure, detention, and all other consequences of hostilities piracy, riots, civil commotions, and barratry excepted).’ In an action on the policies the appellants contended that the ship was lost by marine and not war risks, and that the clause warranted free from capture, and co., referred to hostile acts which amounted to taking possession of the ship insured and did not include consequences of hostilities which were not ejusdem generis with capture, seizure, and detention, such as the destruction of the ship by drifting mines. Held that the loss of the vessel was the direct consequence of hostilities, and the respondents were not liable therefor under the policies.
Decision of the Court of Appeal affirmed.

Lord Chancellor (Lord Birkenhead) Lords Haldane, Dunedin, and Buckmaster
[1919] UKHL 439, 57 SLR 439
Bailii
England and Wales

Transport, Insurance

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.632790

Axa Corporate Solutions Assurance Sa v Weir Services Australia Pty Ltd: ComC 21 Apr 2016

Two applications relating to a coverage dispute under liability insurance policies issued by the claimant insurance company, AXA Corporate Solutions Assurance SA (‘AXA’). The relevant policies are: (1) global liability policies issued in England which insured companies in Weir Group plc including the defendant, Weir Services Australia Pty Limited (‘Weir’), and (2) a ‘broadform’ liability policy issued in Australia in favour of Weir and other subsidiaries of the group in Australia.

Blair J
[2016] EWHC 904 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 14 January 2022; Ref: scu.562513

Alexander Elliot, and Others v William Wilson and Company of Glasgow, Merchants: HL 25 Nov 1776

Insurance – Deviation.- Brokers were instructed to insure a vessel and cargo, ‘from Carron to Hull, with liberty to call as usual;’ The broker effected the insurance, only with liberty to call at Leith. In former insurances between the same parties, liberty had always been given to call at Borrowstoneness, Leith, Morrison’s Haven, and Preston Pans, and the instructions to the broker were given with reference to that practice. The ship, in the course of her voyage, called at Morrison’s Haven; and thereafter resumed her course, as contained in the policy, and sometime after was lost. Held, that as no permission was given to call at Morrison’s Haven, this deviation vacated the policy.

[1776] UKHL 2 – Paton – 411, (1776) 2 Paton 411
Bailii
Scotland

Insurance

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561842

Robert M’Nair, Merchant In Glasgow v James Coulter and Others, Merchants In Glasgow, Insurers of The Ship Jean and Her Cargo: HL 15 Feb 1773

Valued or Open Policy – Proof – Bill of Lading – Interest.- Insurance for andpound;1000, on ship and cargo, lost on her voyage from Virginia to Barbadoes. The son of the insured was master. The policy proceeded on false information of the value sent by the son to the insured, but without the latters knowledge. The Court of Session held, that the bill of lading was not good evidence of the value and quantities of goods. The question was, Whether he was entitled to recover the sum named in the policy, or the real value of the ship and cargo only. Held, reversing the judgment of the Court of Session, that be was entitled to recover the sum of andpound;1000 named in the policy; also to recover interest thereon.

[1773] UKHL 2 – Paton – 297
Bailii

Scotland, Insurance

Updated: 13 January 2022; Ref: scu.561817

Bristol Alliance Ltd v Williams and Another: QBD 1 Jul 2011

The driver had crashed into the insured’s building causing substantial damage. The court was asked which of the driver’s and building’s insurers should bear the costs. The driver’s insurers said that he had acted deliberately and therefore they were not liable. Though they might even so be liable through the Motor Insurers Bureau, the provisions of that scheme would exempt them where, as here, the claim was under subrogation.
Held: The overriding purpose of the compulsory insurance scheme was to protect innocent third parties. The statute and regulations overrode certain kinds of exceptions which an insurer might place in the policy, but a clause against the causing of damage deliberately was not included. The judgment of Laws LJ in Charlton was to be preferred and the word ‘accident’ and its cognates may be construed so as to include the insured’s own criminal or deliberate acts.

Tugendhat J
[2011] EWHC 1657 (QB)
Bailii
Road Traffic Act 1988 151, The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBeresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd HL 1938
The forfeiture rule was to be applied in a case involving suicide. An insured may not recover under a policy of insurance in respect of loss intentionally caused by his own criminal or tortious act, however clearly the wording of the policy may . .
CitedZurich General Accident and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v Morrison 1942
The statutory requirement for compulsory insurance in the Road Traffic Act 1930 was of little value if it was open to insurers to freely exclude liability for common risks. . .
CitedHardy v Motor Insurers’ Bureau CA 1964
The court was asked whether insurance pursuant to the Road Traffic Act 1960 would provide valid cover for the benefit of a third party injured by deliberately criminal conduct on the part of the driver.
Held: Diplock LJ said: ‘The rule of law . .
CitedGardner v Moore HL 1984
The uninsured first defendant deliberately drove a car at the plaintiff who was walking on the pavement, and thus caused serious injuries. The MIB accepted that the trial judge was bound by Hardy to declare that the Bureau was bound to indemnify the . .
CitedChurchill Insurance v Charlton CA 2-Feb-2001
The victim of an unlawful act of a driver off-road sought damages from another driver and his insurers. The insurers refused to pay.
Held: There is a balance to be found between the statutory purpose of compulsory motor insurance and the . .
CitedCriminal proceedings against Ruiz Bernaldez ECJ 28-Mar-1996
Europa In the preliminary-ruling procedure under Article 177 of the Treaty, it is for the national courts alone, before which the proceedings are pending and which must assume responsibility for the judgment to . .
CitedWragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd CA 1-May-2002
A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The rules made . .
CitedEB v France ECHR 30-Sep-2009
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.441423

Newbury v Davis: QBD 1974

The owner of a vehicle agreed to lend it to someone else on condition that that person insured against third party risks. In the owner’s absence, that person drove the car on a road without insurance.
Held: The appeal against conviction was allowed: ‘the defendant did not permit Mr Jarvis to use the car. The defendant gave no permission to use it unless Mr Jarvis had a policy of insurance to cover its use, and he had none. Having no policy of insurance, he took the vehicle without the defendant’s permission. In other words, permission given subject to a condition which is unfulfilled is no permission at all. It may be that the difference is a small one between a case where the owner gives unconditional permission in the mistaken belief that the use is covered by insurance, or in the disappointed hope that it will be covered, and the case where the permission is given subject to a condition and that condition is not fulfilled. But to my mind there is a difference and it is one of legal substance. On this view of the case the defendant committed no offence.’

Lord Widgery CJ, MacKenna J
[1974] RTR 367
Road Traffic Act 1972
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedPhilip Owen Lloyd-Wolper v Robert Moore; National Insurance Guarantee Corporation Plc, Charles Moore CA 22-Jun-2004
The first defendant drove a car belonging to his father and insured by his father. The father consented to the driving but under a mistaken belief that his son was licensed. The claimant was injured by the defendant in a road traffic accident.
DistinguishedBaugh v Crago QBD 1975
The defendant believed that a driver was the holder of a driving licence and permitted him to use the vehicle, when the driver was not in fact such a holder. The prosecutor appealed his acquittal.
Held: Considering Newbury v Davis. The . .
CitedFerrymasters Ltd v Adams 1980
Employers were alleged to have caused or permitted an employee to drive a vehicle on the road while not holding a driving licence authorising him to do so. When the employee had entered the employment, the employers had ensured that he held a valid . .
DistinguishedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Fisher QBD 1992
F was asked to lend L a car. F knew L was disqualified, but agreed provided L found an insured driver with a full valid driving licence. F did not know who L would ask or that he in fact asked R to drive; R was employed as delivery driver and the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Leading Case

Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.199925

Gurtner v Circuit: CA 1968

The Court described the gap in provision for the recovery of damages for injury where the driver of a vehicle was uninsured: ‘if (a) the defendant was not insured at the time of the accident or (b) his policy of insurance was avoided in the circumstances specified in section 10(3) of the Road Traffic Act 1934 for non-disclosure or misrepresentation or (c) his insurer too was insolvent. To fill this gap the insurers transacting compulsory motor vehicle insurance business in Great Britain, acting in agreement with the Minister of Transport, formed a company, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau, to assume liability to satisfy judgments of these three kinds. But instead of amending the legislation so as to impose upon the Motor Insurers’ Bureau a statutory liability to the unsatisfied judgment creditor as had been done by the Road Traffic Act, 1934, in respect of the liability of insurers to satisfy judgments against defendants covered by a valid policy of insurance, the matter was dealt with by an agreement of June 17, 1946, between the Minister of Transport and the Motor Insurers’ Bureau. To this contract, for that is all that it is in law, no unsatisfied judgment creditor is a party. Although clearly intended by both parties to be for the benefit of such creditors, the Minister did not enter into it otherwise than as a principal. He was not purporting to act as agent so as to make it capable in law of ratification by those whom it was intended to benefit. Many of them were not born at the time when it was made. The only person entitled to enforce the contract is the Minister. I do not doubt that upon the principle accepted by the House of Lords in Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 the Minister could enforce it by obtaining a judgment for specific performance which, once obtained, could be enforced against the bureau by the unsatisfied judgment creditor in whose favour the order for specific performance was made. But the Minister is the only party entitled to bring an action to enforce the contract. It confers no right of action against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau upon any unsatisfied judgment creditor.’
Diplock LJ: ‘A matter in dispute is not in my view effectually and completely adjudicated upon unless the rules of natural justice are observed and all those it will be liable to satisfy the judgment are given an opportunity to be heard.’

Diplock LJ
[1968] 2 QB 587
Road Traffic Act 1934 810(3)
England and Wales
Citing:
DisapprovedAmon v Raphael Tuck and Sons Ltd 1956
The court analysed the circumstances under which additional parties might be joined to an action by a defendant, applying a narrow interpretation. The court considered whether a defendant may be added against the parties’ wishes: ‘There are two . .

Cited by:
CitedBalkanbank v Naser Taher and Others QBD 13-Feb-1995
The plaintiff had obtained a worldwide Mareva injunction, giving an undertaking for damages. On its discharge, the defendants sought to make a counterclaim. The defendant company and its subsidiaries sought to counterclaim for their damages suffered . .
CitedHumber Work Boats Ltd v ‘Selby Paradigm’, Owners of Mv and others AdCt 23-Jul-2004
The barge had become holed when run aground and then repaired. The repair was faulty, and it sank. The insurers rejected the claim saying that the owners had failed to disclose a report showing areas of thinning of the hull. The underwriters sought . .
CitedCameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.200494

Cameron v Hussain and Another: CA 23 May 2017

The court was asked: ‘i) whether it is possible to obtain a judgment in respect of a claim for damages against a defendant identified only by description (‘an unnamed defendant’), in the context of a motor claim against an unidentified hit-and-run driver, where the vehicle was identified and an insurance policy had been effected in respect of such vehicle in the name of either a non-existent person or someone who was not traceable;
ii) whether an insurer would be liable to satisfy any unsatisfied judgment against such an unnamed defendant under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (‘the 1988 Act’);
iii) whether the judges below were right to refuse to allow the claimant permission to amend her claim form and particulars of claim so as to substitute, for the named first defendant, a defendant identified only by the following description:
‘The person unknown driving vehicle registration number Y598 SPS who collided with vehicle registration number KG03 ZIZ on 26th May 2013.”

Gloster VP, Lloyd Jones LJJ, Sir Ross Cranston
[2017] WLR(D) 353, [2017] EWCA Civ 366, [2017] PIQR P16, [2018] 1 WLR 657, [2017] RTR 23, [2017] Lloyd’s Rep IR 487
WLRD, Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromCameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd SC 20-Feb-2019
The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Insurance

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.584251

Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd: SC 20 Feb 2019

The Court was asked in what circumstances is it permissible to sue an unnamed defendant? The respondent was injured when her car collided with another. The care was insured but by a driver giving a false name. The car owner refused to identify him. The insurers now appealed against
Held: The appeal succeeded. It is a fundamental feature of the statutory scheme of compulsory insurance in the UK that it does not confer on victims a direct right of recovery against an insurer for the underlying liability of the driver. The only direct right against the insurer is the right to require it to satisfy a judgment against the driver, under section 151, once the driver’s liability has been established in legal proceedings.

Lord Reed, Deputy President, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lady Black
[2019] UKSC 6, [2019] 1 WLR 1471, [2019] PIQR P9, [2019] Lloyd’s Rep IR 230, [2019] RTR 15, [2019] 2 All ER (Comm) 467, [2019] 3 All ER 1, [2019] WLR(D) 112
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD
Road Traffic Act 1988 145
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromCameron v Hussain and Another CA 23-May-2017
The court was asked: ‘i) whether it is possible to obtain a judgment in respect of a claim for damages against a defendant identified only by description (‘an unnamed defendant’), in the context of a motor claim against an unidentified hit-and-run . .
CitedPorter v Freudenberg CA 1915
A British citizen or neutral who is voluntarily resident in the enemy country is to be treated as an alien enemy when the question is asked as to his entitlement to bring proceedings in England.
An order for substituted service, which is as . .
CitedJacobson v Frachn CA 1927
Atkin LJ described the principles of natural justice as follows: ‘Those principles seem to me to involve this, first of all that the court being a court of competent jurisdiction, has given notice to the litigant that they are about to proceed to . .
CitedUK Oil and Gas Investments Plc and Others v Persons Unknown Who Are Protestors ChD 3-Sep-2018
Application by the Claimants for interim injunctions until trial or further order. The injunctions sought relate to protests at sites in Surrey and Sussex where the Claimants carry out conventional oil or gas exploration and/or extraction. . .
CitedNPV v QEL and Another QBD 28-Mar-2018
non-disclosure and harassment injunction . .
CitedBarton v Wright Hassall Llp SC 21-Feb-2018
The claimant, a litigant in person purported to serve his statement of claim by email, but had not first sought the defendant’s agreement as required. The solicitors allowed the limitation period to expire without acknowledging service. The claimant . .
CitedIneos Upstream Ltd and Others v Persons Unknown ChD 21-Dec-2017
. .
CitedCMOC v Persons Unknown ComC 23-Oct-2017
Application for worldwide freezing relief against persons unknown. . .
CitedFriern Barnet UDC v Adams CA 1927
The plaintiff sought the cost of certain streetworks from the relevant frontagers. They did not know their names and issued a writ against ‘the owners of’ certain land clearly identified by name. It was pointed out that only owners of that land at . .
CitedMiddleton and Another v Person or Persons Unknown QBD 28-Sep-2016
Continued Injunction against hacked materials
Application for continuation of an injunction to prevent the disclosure of private materials said to have been obtained by hacking the first claimant’s icloud account. . .
CitedSmith v Unknown Defendant, Pseudonym ‘Likeicare’ and Others QBD 15-Jul-2016
. .
CitedMurfin v Ashbridge CA 1941
A road accident was caused by the alleged negligence of a driver who was identified but could not be found.
Held: While an insurer may be authorised by the policy to defend an action on behalf of his assured, he was not a party in that . .
CitedBrett Wilson Llp v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for The Operation and Publication of The Website www.solicitorsfromhelluk.com QBD 16-Sep-2015
The claimant solicitors sought remedies against the unknown publishers of the respondent website which was said to publish material defamatory of them, and to ampunt to harassment.
Held: The alleged defamatory meanings were not challenged by . .
CitedAbela and Others v Baadarani ChD 24-Jul-2015
In 2002, Mr Abela and his companies entered into a share purchase agreement with Mr Baadarani. In April 2009, Mr Abela and his companies commenced proceedings in relation to a dispute arising out of that transaction. . .
CitedIMT Shipping and Chartering Gmbh v Chansung Shipping Company Ltd, Owners Of the ‘Zenovia’ ComC 8-Apr-2009
The court considered the status and effect of a notice of approximate redelivery date and intended port given by a time charterer to an owner pursuant to the requirements of a time charter in amended New York Produce Exchange Form. In essence, the . .
CitedSouth Cambridgeshire District Council v Gammell and Others CA 31-Oct-2005
Where proceedings were brought against unnamed persons and interim relief was granted to restrain specified acts, a person became both a defendant and a person to whom the injunction was addressed by doing one of those acts. . .
CitedGurtner v Circuit CA 1968
The Court described the gap in provision for the recovery of damages for injury where the driver of a vehicle was uninsured: ‘if (a) the defendant was not insured at the time of the accident or (b) his policy of insurance was avoided in the . .
CitedBloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and J K Rowling v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others ChD 23-May-2003
The publishers had gone to great lengths to keep advance copies of a forthcoming book in the Harry Potter series secret. They became aware that some had been stolen from the printers and sought injunctions against the defendants and another unnamed . .
CitedHampshire Waste Services Ltd v Persons Intending to Trespass and/or Trespassing upon Incinerator Sites ChD 2003
The court granted an interlocutory injunction to restrain unknown trespassers from entering land.
The Vice-Chancellor gave the following guidance : (1) First, that the description of the defendant should not involve a legal conclusion, such as . .
CitedClarke v Vedel CA 1979
A person had stolen a motor cycle, collided with the plaintiffs, given a fictitious name and address and then disappeared. He was sued under the fictitious name he had given, and an application was made for substituted service on the Motor Insurance . .
CitedEMI Recurds v Kudhail CA 1985
An order was sought against the defendasnt and unnamed defendants involved in copyright piracy.
Held: The court was prepared to make an order against the named defendant on his own behalf and as representing all other persons engaged in the . .
CitedCampbell v Conoco (UK) Ltd and others CA 2-May-2002
. .
CitedAbbey National Plc v Frost (Formerly Practising As Harold Weston Frost and Co) and Solicitors’ Indemnity Fund Limited Intervenor CA 4-Feb-1999
. .

Cited by:
CitedLondon Borough of Enfield v Persons Unknown and Others QBD 2-Oct-2020
The council had obtained interim and final injunctions in 2017 against anticipated trespassers on its land and the order was due to expire. It now ought its extension and to amend the terms of the order.
Held: The court noted that no person . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Insurance

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.633461

Hill v Generali Zrt: QBD 14 Dec 2021

Whether a subrogated claim by an insurer can be brought in the name of an English motorist in an English court together with his claim for uninsured losses against a Hungarian insurer in respect of a pre-Brexit accident in Germany. The judge below held that it could not but acknowledged that the question was not free from doubt and granted the motorist permission to appeal.

The Honourable Mr Justice Pepperall
[2021] EWHC 3381 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance, Jurisdiction

Updated: 10 January 2022; Ref: scu.670544

Sobrany v UAB Transtira: CA 28 Jan 2016

‘another chapter in the long running saga of disputes between insurers about liability to indemnify claimants in respect of the cost of hiring replacement vehicles whilst their cars are being repaired following a road traffic accident.’

[2016] EWCA Civ 28
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 09 January 2022; Ref: scu.559380

Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Hall Russell and Co Ltd (The Esso Bernicia): HL 1989

Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘In normal cases, as for example under contracts of insurance, the insurer will on payment request the assured to sign a letter of subrogation, authorising the insurer to proceed in the name of the assured against any wrongdoer who has caused the relevant damage to the assured. If the assured refuses to give any such authority, in theory the insurer can bring proceedings to compel him to do so. But nowadays the insurer can short-circuit this cumbrous process by bringing an action against both the assured and the third party in which (1) he claims an order that the assured shall authorise him to proceed against the third party in the name of the assured and (2) he seeks to proceed (so authorised) against the third party. But it must not be thought that, because this convenient method of proceeding now exists, the insurer can without more proceed in his own name against the third party. He has no right to do so, so long as the right of action he is seeking to enforce is the right of action of the assured. Only if that right of action is assigned to him by the assured can he proceed directly against the third party in his own name.’
The vessel Esso Bernicia was involved in an accident while berthing at Sullom Voe terminal under the control of tugs. The failure of a piece of equipment on board one of the tugs caused the vessel to come into contact with the jetty as a result of which both the vessel and the jetty sustained damage and the foreshore in the area of the terminal was contaminated by fuel oil. Esso paid compensation to the owners of the jetty and to crofters whose sheep had been injured by the pollution of the foreshore and sought to recover from the builders of the tug, Hall, Russell and Co., on the grounds that they had been negligent in its design and construction. Esso contended that it was entitled to be subrogated to the claims of the jetty owners and the crofters against Hall Russell in tort and could pursue those claims in its own name.
Held: Esso it could pursue the claims of the jetty owners and the crofters only in their names. Esso’s payment did not discharge Hall Russell’s liability, and for the same reason Esso could not make a claim in restitution because Hall Russell had not been enriched at its expense. An indemnifier who is subrogated to the rights of someone whom he has indemnified can only pursue those rights in the name of that person.

Lord Jauncey, Lord Goff of Chieveley
[1989] 1 AC 643, [1989] AC 643, [1989] 1 All ER 37, [1989] 1 Lloyds Rep 8, [1989] 1 All ER 37
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedCaledonian North Sea Ltd v London Bridge Engineering Ltd and Others HL 7-Feb-2002
Substantial personal injury claims had been settled following the Piper Alpha disaster. Where a contractual indemnity had been provided under a contract, and insurance had also been taken out, but the insurance had not been a contractual . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Insurance

Updated: 08 January 2022; Ref: scu.191164

Re HSBC Life (UK) Ltd: ChD 24 Jul 2015

Part 8 claim form which seeks an order under s.111 of the 2000 Act sanctioning an insurance business transfer scheme, together with ancillary orders under s.112 FSMA. The Scheme effects the transfer of HLUK’s pensions business to ReAssure.

Snowden J
[2015] EWHC 2664 (Ch)
Bailii
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 111 8112
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 05 January 2022; Ref: scu.553688

R+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Sa and others: ComC 29 Jan 2007

A company may be able to claim for the wasted time spent by its staff investigating the matter at issue without having to show additional expenditure or loss of revenue or profit.

Gloster J
[2007] EWHC 79 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromR+V Versicherung Ag v Risk Insurance and Reinsurance Solutions Sa and others CA 30-Jul-2007
. .
CitedNationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards (HLl) Ltd (T/A Dunlop Heywood Lorenz) and Cobbetts ComC 18-Feb-2009
The claimant had leant money on a property fraudulently overvalued by an employee of the now insolvent first defendant. A contribution order had been agreed by the solicitors. The court heard applications by the claimants and the solicitors against . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Damages

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.248270

Diab v Regent Insurance Company Ltd: PC 19 Jun 2006

(Belize) The appellant’s premises were destroyed by fire. The insurer respondents refused payment, saying that the claimant had delayed notification, had stored ammunition, and had started the fire himself.
Held: Lord Scott referered to his scepticism as to whether absolute compliance with a 15-day time limit in a fire insurance policy would be regarded as always necessary in all circumstances. However the appeal failed on other grounds.

Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Baroness Hale of Richmond, Lord Carswell, Sir Martin Nourse
[2006] UKPC 29
Bailii
Commonwealth
Citing:
CitedSuper Chem Products Limited v American Life and General Insurance Company Limited and Others PC 12-Jan-2004
PC (Trinidad and Tobago) A fire occurred at premises in which the stock was insured under two policies. Both insurers denied the claims alleging arson, and that it was out of time. The claimant said that the . .
CitedIn re Coleman’s Depositories Ltd CA 1970
An insurance policy covered the liability of an employer to compensate his workmen for injuries in the course of their employment. The court was asked whether it incorporated a condition requiring the employer to give immediate notice to the insurer . .
CitedUnited Scientific Holdings v Burnley Borough Council HL 1978
The House was asked whether a failure by a lessor to keep strictly to the timetable laid down in a rent review clause in a lease necessarily deprived the lessor of the benefit of the rent review.
Held: A stipulation as to time in an option . .

Cited by:
CitedShinedean Ltd v Alldown Demolition (London) Ltd and Another CA 20-Jun-2006
The second defendant insurers appealed a finding of liability, saying that the insured had failed to provide its documents within a reasonable time in order to meet a condition to that effect in its terms. The documents had not been provided for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.242922

AXA General Insurance Limited v Gottlieb: CA 11 Feb 2005

The defendant made a claim under an insurance policy. The insurer made an interim payment, but then asserted that the claim was fraudulent, and sought recovery of the interim payment.
Held: At common law, fraud in an insurance claim, once established, affected the entire claim. The whole claim was forfeit, and the interim payment was repayable. However, there is no basis or reason for giving the common law rule relating to fraudulent claims a retrospective effect on prior, separate claims which have already been settled under the same policy before any fraud occurs: ‘the proper scope of the common law rule relating to fraudulent insurance claims is to forfeit the whole of the claim to which the fraud relates, with the effect that the consideration for any interim payments made on that claim fails and they are recoverable.’

Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Keene Lord Justice Mance
[2005] EWCA Civ 112, Times 03-Mar-2005, [2005] 1 All ER (Comm) 445)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedSayers v Clarke Walker (A firm) CA 14-May-2002
In a case of any complexity, when an appeal court considered an application for leave to appeal which was filed out of time, it should have in mind the matters listed in the rules. It was not appropriate to use judge made checklists where one was . .
CitedInsurance Corporation of the Channel Islands Ltd and Another v Charles Joseph McHugh and Another ComC 1-Jul-1996
ComC Insurance – Marine Insurance Act 1906 – common law – duty not to make fraudulent claims – contractual provision – Conspiracy – injury by unlawful means – intention – combination – breach of duty – right to . .
CitedBank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck) HL 1992
The effect of breach of an insurance warranty is automatic, rather than dependant on any acceptance or election.
Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘So it is laid down in section 33(3) that, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer . .
CitedGalloway v Guardian Royal Exchange (UK) Limited CA 15-Oct-1997
The claimant’s policy had been declared void ab initio by the court. On the application form he had falsely stated that he had no convictions, but had only shortly before been convicted of obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception. Part of the . .
CitedAgapitos and Another v Agnew and others ComC 24-Jul-2002
The common law principle governing fraudulent claims has a separate origin and existence to any principle that exists under or by analogy with s.17 of the Act. . .
CitedStrive Shipping Corporation and Another v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd ComC 25-Mar-2002
Grecia Express
. .
CitedDirect Line Insurance Plc v Khan and Another CA 11-Oct-2001
If part of an insurance claim is shown to be fraudulent, the entire claim is avoided. . .
CitedManifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others HL 23-Jan-2001
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been . .
CitedBeresford v Royal Insurance Co Ltd CA 1937
Major Beresford had shot himself. The court considered the applicability of the forfeiture rule in a case involving a suicide: ‘suicide when sane is by English law a felony. This has been so from very early times. The law is thus succinctly stated . .
CitedDirect Line Insurance Plc v Khan and Another CA 11-Oct-2001
If part of an insurance claim is shown to be fraudulent, the entire claim is avoided. . .
CitedCoral Leisure Group Ltd v Barnett EAT 1981
The court was asked whether any taint of illegality affecting part of a contract necessarily rendered the whole contract unenforceable by a party who knew of the illegality. In the case of a contract not for an illegal purpose or prohibited by . .

Cited by:
CitedShah v Ul-Haq and Others CA 9-Jun-2009
The defendant appealed against a refusal to strike out the claimant’s action saying that the claimant had been involved in a fraud upon the court in an earlier associated claim.
Held: The Rule gave no power to strike out a claim on such a . .
CitedFairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
CitedVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others SC 20-Jul-2016
The ‘DC MERWESTONE’ suffered a water ingress of water flooding the engine room. This resulted from (i) the negligence of the crew in failing to close the sea inlet valve of the emergency fire pump and drain down the system, after they had used the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.222783

Daff v Midland Colliery Owners’ Mutual Indemnity Co Ltd: HL 28 Jul 1913

Where membership of a mutual insurance society had been terminated upon the ground of alleged failure to pay a due call, held that, under the contract, the right to recover compensation for an accident, which had occurred in the past but involved a continuing liability, could not be forfeited, but upon the bankruptcy or liquidation of the late member, his right to recover from the insurer passed, in virtue of section 5 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1906, to the injured workman.

51 SLR 564
[1913] UKHL 564, 51 SLR 564
Bailii
England and Wales

Personal Injury, Insurance, Employment

Updated: 04 January 2022; Ref: scu.632747

Pruller-Frey v Norbert Brodnig, Axa Versicherung AG: ECJ 9 Sep 2015

ECJ Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Air carrier liability in the event of accidents – Action for damages – Montreal Convention – Regulation (EC) No 2027/97 – Flight operated free of charge by the owner of a property in order to show that property to a prospective purchaser – Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 – Direct action provided for by national law against the civil-liability insurer

A. Tizzano, P
C-240/14, [2015] EUECJ C-240/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:567
Bailii
Regulation (EC) No 864/2007, Regulation (EC) No 2027/97

European, Personal Injury, Insurance

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.552092

Involnert Management Inc v Aprilgrange Ltd and Others: ComC 10 Aug 2015

The claimant’s yacht ‘Galatea’ caught fire at her mooring in the Athens Marina. As a result of the fire, the yacht was damaged beyond economic repair. The defendant insurers had agreed to insure the Yacht against all risks for an agreed value of 13 million Euros. In this action the claimant is seeking to recover that sum from Insurers. Insurers accept that the loss was an accident of a kind which the policy was intended to cover. They deny liability to pay the claim, however, on a number of grounds.

Leggatt J
[2015] EWHC 2225 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Main JudgmentInvolnert Management Inc v Aprilgrange Limited and Others ComC 8-Oct-2015
Date from which interest was to run on principal damages award. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.551296

Jones v Zurich Insurance Plc: ComC 18 May 2021

Trial of a claim by the Claimant to recover the agreed value of a Rolex Daytona Tropical watch under a policy of insurance underwritten by the Defendant

His Honour Judge Pelling QC,
Sitting as a Judge of the High Court
[2021] EWHC 1320 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 03 January 2022; Ref: scu.663104

Equity Syndicate Management Ltd v Glaxosmithkline Plc: ComC 23 Jul 2015

The court was asked: ‘whether a contract of insurance between Glaxo Smith Kline (‘GSK’) as insured and Equity Red Star (‘Equity’, also known as Syndicate 318 at Lloyd’s) as insurer should be rectified. Unusually, however, both parties to the contract agree that it should be rectified because the cover which it provided was wider than was intended. They agree that the contract was never intended to insure the liability of a GSK employee, Ms Janet Ball, who was involved in an accident on 5 October 2006. The claim for rectification is resisted by another insurance company, Axa, which undoubtedly insured Ms Ball. Axa contends that the wording of the Equity cover extends to Ms Ball; that as a result there was double insurance in place; and that it is therefore entitled to a 50% contribution from Equity towards what it has paid to the victim of the accident in which Ms Ball was involved. ‘

Males J
[2015] EWHC 2163 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 02 January 2022; Ref: scu.550501

Woolwich Building Society v Taylor and Another: ChD 17 May 1994

A person requesting third party information under the Act, must first establish a claim sufficient to justify the right claimed. The third party claimant’s right against the insured arose at the time when the claimant suffered a loss but that the right of the insured to sue his insurer in respect of the liability he had incurred did not arise until the liability had been ascertained by judgment, award or agreement. Since it was impossible to know whether a right had been transferred until such judgment award or agreement had occurred, no information could reasonably be required, before such judgment award or agreement, ‘for the purpose of ascertaining whether any rights have been transferred or vested’ in the claimant by the Act.

Lindsay J
Times 17-May-1994, [1995] 1 BCLC 132
Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 2
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedFirst National Tricity Finance Ltd v OT Computers Ltd; In re OT Computers Ltd (in administration) CA 25-May-2004
The company had gone into liquidation. They had sold consumer policies as extended warranties on behalf of the claimant. The company had insured its own joint liability under the contracts, and the claimant sought information from the company’s . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insolvency, Insurance

Updated: 01 January 2022; Ref: scu.90601

Ram (Administrator of The Estate of Pearl Baboolal) v Motor and General Insurance Company Ltd: PC 18 May 2015

Trinidad and Tobago – There had been a road traffic accident leading to the loss of several lives. The insurer of the negligent party resisted paying out more in damages, saying that its liability was limited to $1m, and: ‘The principal issue in this appeal is whether an insurance company, before it pays third party claims under an insurance policy which has a contractual monetary limit on the aggregate of claims arising out of one event which equates with the statutory minimum cover, must (a) ascertain the total claims arising from the event and (b) where the total exceeds the limit, devise a scheme for the proportionate payment of the claims.’

Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKPC 22
Bailii
Commonwealth

Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.546864

Society of Lloyd’s v Laws and others: ComC 24 Apr 2003

Cooke J
[2003] EWHC 873 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedThomas-Everard and Others v Society of Lloyd’s ChD 18-Jul-2003
The claimant appealed refusal to set aside a statutory demand made by the respondent society. The proposed defence had been already been dismissed by the courts.
Held: Such a consideration was very relevant, but not necessarily determinative. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Litigation Practice

Updated: 30 December 2021; Ref: scu.181326

Teal Assurance Co Ltd v W R Berkley Insurance Europe Ltd and Another: ComC 23 Apr 2015

‘trial of certain preliminary issues in relation to disputes arising between the claimant (‘Teal’) and its defendant reinsurers (the ‘Reinsurers’). In essence, the questions concern the time at which, and therefore the order in which, insured losses were suffered for the purpose of a programme of professional indemnity insurance and reinsurance.’

Eder J
[2015] EWHC 1000 (Comm)
Bailii

Insurance

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546185

Van Hove v CNP Assurances SA: ECJ 23 Apr 2015

ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 93/13/EEC – Unfair terms – Insurance contract – Article 4(2) – Assessment of the unfairness of contractual terms – Exclusion of terms relating to the main subject-matter of the contract – Term intended to ensure that mortgage loan repayments are covered – Borrower’s total incapacity for work – Exclusion from cover in the event of recognised fitness to undertake an activity, paid or otherwise

Ilesic P
C-96/14, [2015] EUECJ C-96/14
Bailii
Directive 93/13/EEC

European, Consumer, Insurance

Updated: 29 December 2021; Ref: scu.546113

The Presidential Insurance Company Ltd v Mohammed and Others: PC 3 Feb 2015

(Trinidad and Tobago) The principal issue in the appeal is whether the MVIA enables someone who has suffered property damage caused by a motor vehicle accident to obtain indemnity from the vehicle owner’s insurers when the driver, who caused the damage, was not authorised by the insurance policy to drive the vehicle.

Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2015] UKPC 4
Bailii

Commonwealth, Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.542233

Western Trading Ltd v Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) Plc: QBD 26 Jan 2015

‘This fire insurance claim by the Claimant is resisted by the Defendant on the grounds that the assured had no insurable interest and that there was misrepresentation and non disclosure. The Defendant also claims that if the Claimant does have a valid claim it should not have a Declaration that it is entitled to be indemnified for the cost of reinstatement. ‘

Mackie QC HHJ
[2015] EWHC 103 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance

Updated: 27 December 2021; Ref: scu.541768

Sugar Hut Group and Others v A J Insurance: ComC 20 Oct 2014

The claimants had engaged the defendant insurance brokers to secure fire insurance. Their property was badly damaged by fire. The insurers had successfully repudiated liability for non-disclosure, but the judge had also found that the fault arose through the negligence of the defendants.

Eder J
[2014] EWHC 3352 (Comm)
Bailii

Insurance, Agency

Updated: 22 December 2021; Ref: scu.537765

Farnworth And Another v Hyde: CExC 27 Feb 1865

A vessel was stranded and frozen up in the St Lawrence in the beginning of the winter; and, on the breaking up of the ice in the Spring, she was found to be in imminent peril, and, after several surveys, both ship and cargo were sold under circumstances which the jury found to constitute a reasonable necessity for an immediate sale, the expense of getting the ship afloat and repairing her, and of forwarding the cargo (timber) to its destination (Liverpool) being greater than their value when so respectively repaired and carried :-Held, that the underwriters on cargo were liable as for a total loss, without notice of abandonment ; the information of the loss and of the sale having both reached the assured at the same time.

[1865] EngR 274, (1865) 18 CB NS 835, (1865) 141 ER 674
Commonlii
England and Wales

Insurance, Transport

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.281186

In Re A Company No 007816 of 1994, Same Re 007818, 007819, 007820, etc: ChD 13 Oct 1995

The company was said to have acted in breach of section 2(1) of the1982 Act.
Held: A Minister’s application to wind up companies in the public interest must be cogently argued. Insurance authorisation depends on where the effecting and carrying out of contracts of insurance occurs. The purpose of the addition of the words ‘as principal’, which had not appeared in earlier equivalent legislation, was to confirm that it did not extend to agents duly authorised by insurers.
That an insurance contract is made outside the UK does not mean that there cannot be the carrying on of an insurance business within the UK. Some activities conducted by brokers in the UK on behalf of offshore companies (other than the mere acceptance of risk) can amount to evidence that the offshore companies were carrying on business in the UK.

Times 13-Oct-1995, [1997] 2 BCLC 685
Companies Act 1986 124A, Insurance Companies Act 1982 2(1)
England and Wales

Company, Insurance

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.81646

Sunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Limited, C N R Atkin: ComC 27 Feb 2002

A claim was made under a marine insurance policy. The policy incorporated the Institute War and Strikes Clauses, Hulls-Time of 1/10/83, and included a clause ‘loss damage . . arising from . . Detainment . . by reason of infringement of any customs or trading regulations.’ The ship was detained for possible involvement in illegal drugs importing to Greece. The insurers sought to deny liability under the clause.
Held: The phrase should be interpreted to achieve a business-like result and to include provisions of law controlling imports and exports and regulation of the misuse of drugs. It had to be interpreted widely to allow for the need to recognise the laws of any country.

Mr Justice Cresswell
Times 05-Apr-2002, Gazette 18-Apr-2002, [2002] EWHC 235 (Commercial)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromSunport Shipping Limited, Prometheus Maritime Corporation, Celestial Maritime Corporation, Surzur Overseas Limited v Tryg-Baltica International (UK) Ltd (Formerly Know As Colonia Baltica Insurance Ltd) and others CA 24-Jan-2003
(The ‘Kleovoulos of Rhodes’) A large quantity of cocaine was discovered by divers behind a grille in a sea chest at the vessel’s discharge port, Aliveri – having been placed there by unknown third persons at the load port in Colombia, South America. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.167735

Beacon Insurance Company Ltd v Maharaj Bookstore Ltd: PC 9 Jul 2014

(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board was asked as to an insurance claim arising out of a fire and the insurance company’s rejection of that claim on the ground that part of it was fraudulent or had involved fraudulent devices. The principal issue was whether the Court of Appeal was entitled to overturn the findings of fact made by the judge at first instance.

Lord Mance, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge
[2014] UKPC 21, [2014] 4 All ER 418
Bailii
Commonwealth
Cited by:
CitedCarlyle (Scotland) v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc SC 11-Mar-2015
Assessing Whether 1st Judge was Plainly Wrong
The Court was asked whether, on an objective assessment of a what a developer and the bank had said to each other, the bank intended to enter into a legally binding promise to advance sums in the future to fund not only the developers purchase of . .
CitedPaymaster (Jamaica) Ltd and Another v Grace Kennedy Remittance Services Ltd PC 11-Dec-2017
(Court of Appeal of Jamaica) The parties disputed the ownership of copyight in certain computer software, and also an allegation of the misuse of confidential information. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533886

Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd v Novae Corporate Underwriting Ltd: ComC 2 Jul 2014

Application for summary judgment by the Claimant relating to one of the defences of the Defendant to a claim under a facultative excess of loss reinsurance in respect of a payment made by TMEI to the original insurer, ACE European Group Ltd following the settlement by ACE of a claim by the original insured, Tesco plc and its subsidiaries.

Field J
[2014] EWHC 2105 (Comm)
Bailii

Insurance

Updated: 16 December 2021; Ref: scu.533815

The Federal Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury Trust v Federal-Mogul Ltd and Others: ComC 27 Jun 2014

The claimant trust sought declarations regarding the responsibility of the defendant re-insurers to indemnify the insurers in respect of claims for asbestos related injuries on claims by the Trust on behalf of those injured.

Eder J
[2014] EWHC 2002 (Comm)
Bailii

Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 15 December 2021; Ref: scu.533191

Welch v Royal Exchange Assurance: CA 1938

The court was asked whether compliance with a clause in the insurance contract was a condition precedent. There was also a question whether the insured could rely on facts arising after the making of their claim.
Held: If a clause does not set out the time limit by which compliance is required, the insured must comply (a) within a reasonable time and (b) in any event before proceedings are issued,
Slesser LJ said: ‘During the hearing before the arbitrator it was for the first time relied upon by the insurance company that the claimant had failed to give the respondents any information which was reasonably required with respect to two banking accounts of his mother which had been used and controlled by the claimant for the purpose of his business and that large sums of money accruing to the claimant had been paid by him into the accounts and large sums drawn out of the accounts by him for the purposes of his business.
At the arbitration, in the course of the cross-examination of the claimant, the claimant, for the first time, offered to give, and did give, full information as to these two banking accounts, but the learned arbitrator finds that until the accounts were so produced the respondents were not in possession of sufficient information to enable them to allege that the claimant’s failure to give information in respect of the said accounts was a breach of condition 4 of the policy.’
. . And ‘In these circumstances, even if the requirement of information in condition 4 be not a condition precedent, but merely a condition that the insurance company need not pay until the information required in condition 4 is provided, the appellant fails because he cannot say that such information was in fact given before the claim was made, and therefore it becomes to my mind unnecessary in this case to determine whether the failure to comply with condition 4 as to information was a failure to satisfy a condition precedent. For myself, I would wish to keep open that question. Had the phrase at the end of condition 4 been ‘no claim under this policy shall ‘be payable until the terms of this condition have been ‘complied with’ instead of the word ‘unless,’ the case would have resembled that of Weir v. Northern Counties of England Insurance Co. (I), where it was held that such words did not constitute a condition precedent but only a requirement to be satisfied before a liability to pay arose, but it may well be said that here the word ‘unless’ has no such temporal limitation.
In the result I think this appeal should fail, not upon the ground that condition 4 is a condition precedent, but upon the ground of the claimant’s failure to give necessary information before a claim was made by him, which failure the appellant through his own act in the circumstances of this case is unable to excuse.’
MacKinnon LJ said: ‘But in truth the more formidable argument for the respondents does not depend on the last sentence of condition 4. They say that the promise in the body of the policy is ‘subject to the conditions which, so far as the nature of ‘them permits shall be deemed to be conditions precedent to ‘the right of the insured to recover.’ In condition 4 there is the provision that ‘the insured shall give all such information as ‘shall reasonably be required.’ The nature of this requirement does permit compliance with it to be a condition precedent to the right of the insured to recover. It is found by the arbitrator that it has not been complied with. There has therefore been a breach of a condition precedent to the right of recovery.’ and ‘None the less I am driven to the conclusion that the stipulation that the insured shall give all such information as may be reasonably required is one whose nature permits it to be a condition precedent to the right of the assured to recover, and that the presence of the last sentence in condition 4 does not by any ambiguity alter that nature or invalidate that conclusion.’

Slesser, MacKinnon LJJ
[1939] 1 KB 294, [1938] 4 All ER 289
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBolton Metropolitan Borough Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 6-Feb-2006
The deceased had come into contact with asbestos when working on building sites for more than one contractor. The claimant here sought contribution from the defendants for the damages it had paid to his estate. The issue was as to liability on . .
CitedShinedean Ltd v Alldown Demolition (London) Ltd and Another CA 20-Jun-2006
The second defendant insurers appealed a finding of liability, saying that the insured had failed to provide its documents within a reasonable time in order to meet a condition to that effect in its terms. The documents had not been provided for . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 11 December 2021; Ref: scu.238334

Farrell v Whitty: ECJ 19 Apr 2007

ECJ Compulsory insurance for civil liability in respect of motor vehicles Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC and 90/232/EEC Injuries to the passengers of a vehicle – Part of a vehicle not adapted for the carriage of seated passengers.

[2007] EUECJ C-356/05, [2007] ECR I-3067, [2007] Lloyd’s Rep IR 525
Bailii
Directive 90/232/EEC, Directive 84/5/EEC, Directive 72/166/EEC
European

European, Insurance, Road Traffic

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.251879

Britain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (“The Matiana”): CA 1919

The court was asked wheter a merchant vessel was acting a a military ship when in convoy.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Warrington LJ said: ‘Of course the sailing with convoy may easily assume the character of a warlike operation; if the convoy were actually attacked or if an attack were impending or immediately apprehended then from that moment the operations might well become warlike operations’.

Warrington LJ
[1919] 2 KB 670
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBritain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’) CA 1919
(Year?) The steamship was insured under a time policy against perils of the sea and stranding, and under further insurance against risks excluded under the first, particularly risks of hostile action. It was in a convoy of four ships zig zagging in . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromBritain Steamship Company Limited v The King and Others (‘The Matiana’) HL 1921
The House considered the relationship between a merchant vessel in convoy and a convoying naval vessel.
Held: The appeal succeeded. Lord Atkinson: ‘With all respect, I am quite unable to concur in the learned judge’s view that the merchant . .
CitedFogg and Ledgard v The Secretary of State for Defence, Short Admn 13-Dec-2005
The applicants sought judicial review of a decision of the respondent not to name the wreck of the merchant ship SS STORAA as a protected site under the 1986 Act. It had been a merchant ship forming part of a convoy, and was sunk by enemy action in . .
ApprovedFogg and Another, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Defence CA 5-Oct-2006
The Secretary of State appealed an order declaring the wreck of a merchant ship lost through enemy action in 1943 when part of a convoy. He said it was wrong in law to make the declaration, having not been in military service as such when sunk even . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Armed Forces, Transport

Updated: 10 December 2021; Ref: scu.237697

British Telecommunications Plc v Royal Mail Group Ltd: CA 8 Jul 2010

Claim for indemnity made by the appellant, British Telecommunications Plc (‘BT’), against the respondent, Royal Mail Group Limited (‘RMG’), in proceedings against BT by the widow of a victim of mesophelioma, Gordon Hilton.

[2010] EWCA Civ 974
Bailii
England and Wales

Insurance, Personal Injury

Updated: 06 December 2021; Ref: scu.551928