Haydon and Others v Lo and Lo (A Firm) and Another: PC 23 Jan 1997

(Hong Kong) A claim was made under a professional indemnity policy. The solicitors’ clerk had through a series of frauds embezzled some HK$50m. The insurers said that this was one claim, and that their liability was limited to the maximum under the policy. The question was whether this was ‘one claim’ or a series of claims.
Held: The phrase referred to the claim as directed against the firm by the client who had lost out, and not to the several acts of appropriation by the clerk. ‘it is the underlying facts which are determinative, and . . the formulation of the claim by the third party cannot be decisive of an insurer’s liability, whether for the purpose of calculating the deductible, or for any other purpose. ‘
(Hong Kong)


Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Griffiths, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hope of Craighead, Sir Christopher Slade


Times 23-Jan-1997, [1997] UKPC 2, [1997] 1 WLR 198






CitedAustralia and New Zealand Bank Limited v Colonial and Eagle Wharves Limited 1960
A claim was made under an all risks insurance policy on goods taken out by a firm of wharfingers. There was an excess of andpound;100 each and every claim. During the currency of the policy the wharfingers misdelivered a total of 246 bales on 30 . .
CitedWest Wake Price and Co v Ching 1957
A clerk employed by a firm of accountants defrauded two of the firm’s clients of andpound;20,000 over a period of about three years.
Held: One can not ‘pay’ a cause of action.
Devlin J said: ‘I think that the primary meaning of the word . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Commonwealth

Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.81285