Albert v Motor Insurers Bureau: HL 1971

The plaintiff suffered injury as a passenger when getting a lift to work from a co-worker. The driver was uninsured and had given lift to several co-workers over a period of time, mking a charge.
Held: The lift arrangement was in the nature of a contract, and therefore under the MIB scheme, the MIB were obliged to pay compensation.
Viscount Dilhorne said: ‘To constitute carriage for hire or reward, it is not, of course, necessary that payment is made before the journey. If there is an arrangement that payment will be made for that it matters not when the payment is in fact made.’

Viscount Dilhorne
[1971] 3 WLR 291
England and Wales

Road Traffic, Insurance, Personal Injury, Contract

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.565344

Scher and Others v Policyholders Protection Board and Others Ackman v Same: HL 1 Sep 1993

The Court of Appeal had defined the expression ‘any liability . . under the terms of any policy’ in wide terms. An insurance policy is a UK one, if the obligations to be performed might have been part of a UK operation.
Lord Mustill criticised an attempt by the judge to construe a statute in a vacuum divorced from any proper factual basis.

Lord Mustill
Independent 16-Jul-1993, Times 16-Jul-1993, Gazette 01-Sep-1993, Gazette 19-Jan-1994, [1994] 2 AC 57
Policyholders Protection Act 1975 4(2), Insurance Companies Act 1982 96(1), Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAitken v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Limited SCS 30-May-2003
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, International

Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.89046

Enosi Epangelmation Asfaliston Ellados v Ipourgos Anaptixis: ECJ 17 Oct 2013

ECJ Directive 2002/92/EC – Insurance mediation – Exclusion of the activities pursued by an insurance undertaking or an employee acting under the responsibility of such an undertaking – Whether it is possible for such an employee to pursue insurance mediation activities on an incidental basis – Professional requirements

C-555/11, [2013] EUECJ C-555/11
Bailii
Directive 2002/92/EC
European

Insurance

Updated: 22 November 2021; Ref: scu.516573

Verderame v Commercial Union Assurance Co Plc: CA 2 Apr 1992

The insurance brokers, acting to arrange insurance for a small private limited company did not owe a duty in tort to the directors of that company personally. Where an action was brought in a tort and in breach of contract, damages could not be awarded on the tort where they were not available in contract.

Balcombe LJ
[1992] BCLC 793, Times 02-Apr-1992
England and Wales
Citing:
FollowedWatts and Co v Morrow CA 30-Jul-1991
The plaintiff had bought a house on the faith of the defendant’s report that there were only limited defects requiring repair. In fact the defects were much more extensive. The defendant surveyor appealed against an award of damages after his . .

Cited by:
CitedJohnson v Gore Wood and Co (a Firm) CA 12-Nov-1998
The claimant had previously issued a claim against the defendant solicitors through his company. He now sought to pursue a claim in his own name. It was resisted as an abuse of process, and on the basis that no personal duty of care was owed to the . .
CitedHamilton Jones v David and Snape (a Firm) ChD 19-Dec-2003
The claimant was represented by the respondent firm of solicitors in an action for custody of her children. Through their negligence the children had been removed from the country. She sought damages for the distress of losing her children.
Agency, Insurance, Company, Contract, Negligence, Damages

Updated: 16 November 2021; Ref: scu.181818

Versloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others: ComC 14 Jun 2013

The claimant shipowners suffered damage to their vessel and claimed under their policy with the defendants. The defendants argued that part of the evidence supporting the explanation of the claim was fabricated, thus excusing any payment.
Held: The loss was proximately caused by a peril of the seas, namely the fortuitous entry of seawater through the sea inlet valve during the voyage, and that the relevant part of the Inchmaree clause had no application to this peril. The lie was irrelevant to the merits of the claim. However, the claim was disallowed
Popplewell J said: ‘In a scale of culpability which may attach to fraudulent conduct relating to the making of claims, this was at the low end. It was a reckless untruth, not a carefully planned deceit. It was told on one occasion, not persisted in at the trial. It was told in support of a theory about the events surrounding the casualty which Chris Kornet genuinely believed to be a plausible explanation. The reckless untruth was put forward against the background of having made the crew available for interview by the Underwriters’ solicitor, who had had the opportunity to make his own inquiries of the crew on the topic. To be deprived of a valid claim of some 3.2m Euros as a result of such reckless untruth is, in my view, a disproportionately harsh sanction.’
He regarded the result as unjust to the parties: ‘In a scale of culpability which may attach to fraudulent conduct relating to the making of claims, this was at the low end. It was a reckless untruth, not a carefully planned deceit. It was told on one occasion, not persisted in at the trial. It was told in support of a theory about the events surrounding the casualty which Chris Kornet genuinely believed to be a plausible explanation. The reckless untruth was put forward against the background of having made the crew available for interview by the Underwriters’ solicitor, who had had the opportunity to make his own inquiries of the crew on the topic. To be deprived of a valid claim of some 3.2m Euros as a result of such reckless untruth is, in my view, a disproportionately harsh sanction.’

Popplewell J
[2013] EWHC 1666 (Comm)
Bailii
Marine Insurance Act 1906 39(5)
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others (Rev 1) ComC 14-Jun-2013
. .

Cited by:
At ComCVersloot Dredging Bv and Another v Hdi Gerling Industrie Versicherung Ag and Others CA 16-Oct-2014
. .
At ComCVersloot 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: 14 November 2021; Ref: scu.510957

MacCaferri Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc: ComC 19 Jun 2015

maccafferiCoC201506

The claimant manufacturer challenged a refusal of indemnity from his insurers, the defendants under its product liability policy. An end user consumer had been injured. The insurer said that the claimant had delayed on notifying the possible claim.
Held: The claim succeeded: ‘the likelihood of a claim cannot simply be inferred from the happening of an accident’ and ‘when the accident occurred, there was not at least a fifty per cent chance that a claim against the Claimant would eventuate. There had been an accident. The gun was involved. It was a possibility, but not more, that the accident involved a fault in the gun. But there were other possibilities: a fault in the way in which the gun was used, or no fault at all.’

Knowles CBE J
[2015] EWHC 1708 (Comm)
Bailii
Citing:
CitedLayher Ltd v Lowe and Others CA 8-Jan-1997
The insurers became insolvent, and re-insurers sought to escape liability saying that no sums had been paid out to trigger the re-insurer’s liability.
Held: Re-Insurers were liable under a policy requiring them to pay out on sums paid out by . .
CitedVerelst’s Administratrix v Motor Cross Union Insurance Company Limited 1925
The insured was killed in a motor accident in India on 14 January 1923. Knowledge of her death reached her personal representative in England within a month, but the personal representative did not know of the existence of the insurance policy until . .
CitedJacobs v Coster, Avon Insurance CA 25-Jan-1999
. .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.549251

Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The Kanchenjunga): HL 1990

A ship was caught in harbour when an air raid broke out. The master took the ship to sea where it suffered damage.
Held: The shipowners were protected by a war risks clause in the charterparty agreement. As to waiver by election, Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘In the present case, we are concerned with an election which may arise in the context of a binding contract, when a state of affairs comes into existence in which one party becomes entitled, either under the terms of the contract or by the general law, to exercise a right, and he has to decide whether or not to do so. His decision, being a matter of choice for him, is called in law an election. Characteristically, this state of affairs arises where the other party has repudiated the contract or has otherwise committed a breach of the contract which entitles the innocent party to bring it to an end, or has made a tender of performance which does not conform to the terms of the contract. .
In all cases, he has in the end to make his election, not as a matter of obligation, but in the sense that, if he does not do so, the time may come when the law takes the decision out of his hands, either by holding him to have elected not to exercise the right which has become available to him, or sometimes by holding him to have elected to exercise it. Instances of this phenomenon are to be found in s. 35 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. In particular, where with knowledge of the relevant facts a party has acted in a manner which is consistent only with his having chosen one of the two alternative and inconsistent courses of action then open to him – for example, to determine a contract or alternatively to affirm it – he is held to have made his election accordingly . . perhaps because a party who elects not to exercise a right which has become available to him is abandoning that right, he will only be held to have done so if he has so communicated his election to the other party in clear and unequivocal terms Moreover, it does not require consideration to support it, and so it is to be distinguished from an express or implied agreement, such as a variation of the relevant contract, which traditionally requires consideration to render it binding in English Law.’

Lord Goff of Chieveley
Times 19-Feb-1990, [1990] CLY 4077, [1990] 1 Lloyds Rep 391
Sale of Goods Act 1979 35
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedOliver Ashworth (Holdings) Limited v Ballard (Kent) Limited CA 18-Mar-1999
In order for the landlord to claim double rent where a tenant held over unlawfully after the tenancy was determined, the landlord must not do anything to indicate that the lease might be continuing, for example by denying the validity of break . .
CitedPeregrine Systems Ltd v Steria Ltd CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimant provided computer software to the defendants. The defendants appealed dismissal of their defences arguing that the system had failed.
Held: No repudiatory breach was established, and moreover Steria had elected to affirm the . .
CitedStocznia Gdynia Sa v Gearbulk Holdings Ltd CA 13-Feb-2009
Orders were placed for the construction of ships. They were not delivered. The buyer, the defendant, cancelled the orders. The defendants sought the loss of profit. The claimants said they were entitled only to the repayment of instalments. The . .
CitedWheatley, Smith As Executors of Henry Thomas Cadbury-Brown v King LRA 30-Nov-2011
LRA Estoppel – Exercise of options – whether defect waived – ‘The Kanchenjunga’ [1990] Lloyds Law Reports 391 – Peyman v Lanjani [1985] 1 Ch 457, HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd v AXA Corporate Solutions . .
ExplainedTele2 International Card Company Sa and others v Post Office Ltd CA 21-Jan-2009
Appeal against rejection of claim for novation of contract.
Held: Aikens LJ summarised the analysis by Lord Goff of the principles of affirmation by election in Kanchenjunga as follows: ‘i) If a contract gives a party a right to terminate upon . .
CitedForce India Formula One Team Ltd v 1 Malaysia Racing Team Sdn Bhd and Others ChD 21-Mar-2012
The claimants alleged misuse by the defendants of confidential information.
Held: Arnold J said: ‘Confidential information is not property, however, even though businessmen often deal with confidential information as if it were property and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Contract, Equity

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.188152

Macaura 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 claim was refused by the insurers.
Held: His appeal failed. An insurable interest in property could only arise where the insured held a legal or equitable interest in the insured property.
Neither a shareholder nor a simple creditor of a company had any insurable interest in any particular asset of the company because as such he had no legal or equitable interest in it.
Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Turning now to his position as shareholder, this must be independent of the extent of his share interest. If he were entitled to insure holding all the shares in the company, each shareholder would be equally entitled, if the shares were all in separate hands. Now, no shareholder has any right to any item of property owned by the company, for he has no legal or equitable interest therein. He is entitled to a share in the profits while the company continues to carry on business and a share in the distribution of the surplus assets when the company is wound up. If he were at liberty to effect an insurance against loss by fire of any item of the company’s property, the extent of his insurable interest could only be measured by determining the extent to which his share in the ultimate distribution would be diminished by the loss of the asset – a calculation almost impossible to make. There is no means by which such an interest can be definitely measured and no standard which can be fixed of the loss against which the contract of insurance could be regarded as an indemnity . . In the present case, though it might be regarded as a moral certainty that the appellant would suffer loss if the timber which constituted the sole asset of the company were destroyed by fire, this moral certainty becomes dissipated and lost if the asset be regarded as only one in an innumerable number of items in a company’s assets and the shareholding interest be spread over a large number of individual shareholders.’ and ‘No shareholder has any right to any item of property owned by the company, for he has no legal or equitable interest therein. He is entitled to a share in the profits while the company continues to carry on business and a share in the distribution of the surplus assets when the company is wound up.’
Lord Sumner also said that the appellant had no insurable interest: ‘It is clear that the appellant had no insurable interest in the timber described . . He had no lien or security over it and, though it lay on his land by his permission, he had no responsibility to its owner for its safety, nor was it there under any contract that enabled him to hold it for his debt. He owned almost all the shares in the company, and the company owed him a good deal of money, but, neither as creditor nor as shareholder, could he insure the company’s assets. The debt was not exposed to fire nor were the shares, and the fact that he was virtually the company’s only creditor, while the timber was its only asset, seems to me to make no difference. He stood in no ‘legal or equitable relation to’ the timber at all. He had no ‘concern in’ the subject insured. His relation was to the company, not its goods, and after the fire he was directly prejudiced by the paucity of the company’s assets, not by the fire.’
Lord Wrenbury said: ‘My Lords, this appeal may be disposed of by saying that the corporator even if he holds all the shares is not the corporation, and that neither he nor any creditor of the company has any property legal or equitable in the assets of the corporation.’

Lord Buckmaster, Lord Wrenbury, Lord Sumner
[1925] AC 619, (1925) 133 LT 152, [1925] All ER 51, [1925] AC 619, [1925] All ER Rep 51, 94 LJPC 154, 133 LT 152, 41 TLR 447, 69 Sol Jo 777, 31 Com Cas 10 HL
England and Wales
Cited by:
DistinguishedSharp 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 . .
CitedFeasey 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 . .
CitedBen Hashem v Ali Shayif and Another FD 22-Sep-2008
The court was asked to pierce the veil of incorporation of a company in the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce. H had failed to co-operate with the court.
After a comprehensive review of all the authorities, Munby J said: ‘The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Company

Leading Case

Updated: 09 November 2021; Ref: scu.184482

Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds (The Popi M): HL 16 May 1985

The Popi M sank in calm seas and fair weather as a result of a large and sudden entry of water into her engine room through her shell plating. The vessel’s owners claimed against her hull and machinery underwriters, contending that the loss was caused by a peril of the sea or alternatively by crew negligence. The suggested peril of the sea was a moving submerged object, i.e. a submarine. The underwriters contended that the vessel was not seaworthy. More specifically, the underwriters advanced a mechanism for unseaworthiness through wear and tear, based on expert metallurgical evidence. The judge rejected that theory. He also rejected the owners’ argument that there had been crew negligence. That left the possibilities that the vessel was in some other way unseaworthy or that it collided with a submarine. There was no clear basis upon for the court to say that burden of proof had been discharged.
Held: The burden of proving this, on a balance of probabilities, lay on the plaintiffs. A trial judge is not bound to accept the evidence of one side or the other: there remains the possibility of deciding the case on the burden of proof. The court should avoid deciding cases on a balance of improbabilities. It was not possible to proceed on the basis of eliminating the impossible and deciding that the remaining explanation, however improbable, must be the cause, unless all the relevant facts were known; that state of affairs did not exist, as the ship had sunk in deep water. The concept of proof on a balance of probabilities had to be applied with common sense. It required a judge, before he found a particular event occurred, to be satisfied on the evidence that it was more likely to have occurred than not.
(1) where the cause of a past event is in issue and two or more competing causes are advanced the burden of proving his case on causation remains on the claimant throughout, and though the defendant can advance a competing cause there is no obligation on him to prove this case.
(2) Even after a prolonged enquiry with a mass of expert evidence, it is open to the courts to conclude that causation remains in doubt and the result will be that the claimant has failed to discharge the burden of proof.
(3) Therefore the effect of this decision is that where the court considers one theory as improbable but also rules out all other theories the court should not treat the improbable theory as the likely cause of the event.
Lord Brandon of Oakbrook said: ‘the appeal does not raise any question of law, except possibly the question what is meant by proof of a case ‘on a balance of probabilities’. Nor do underwriters challenge . . any of the primary findings of fact made by Bingham J. The question, and the sole question, which your Lordships have to decide is whether on the basis of those primary findings of fact, Bingham J and the Court of Appeal were justified in drawing the inference that the ship was, on the balance of probabilities, lost by perils of the sea.
In approaching this question it is important that two matters should be borne constantly in mind. The first matter is that the burden of proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the ship was lost by perils of the seas is and remains throughout on the shipowners. Although it is open to the underwriters to suggest and seek to prove some other cause of loss, against which the ship was not insured, there is no obligation on them to do so. Moreover, if they chose to do so, there is no obligation on them to prove, even on a balance of probabilities, the truth of their alternative case.
The second matter is that it is always open to a court, even after the kind of prolonged inquiry with a mass of expert evidence which took place in this case, to conclude, at the end of the day, that the proximate cause of the ship’s loss, even on a balance of probabilities, remains in doubt, with the consequence that the shipowners have failed to discharge the burden of proof which lay on them.’
As to the Sherlock Holmes fallacy that ‘once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, is the truth ‘: ‘In my view there are three reasons why it is inappropriate to apply the dictum of Mr. Sherlock Holmes, to which I have just referred, to the process of fact-finding which a Judge of first instance has to perform at the conclusion of a case of the kind here concerned.
The first reason is one which I have already sought to emphasize as being of great importance, namely, that the Judge is not bound always to make a finding one way or the other with regard to the facts averred by the parties. He has open to him the third alternative of saying that the party on whom the burden of proof lies in relation to any averment made by him has failed to discharge that burden. No judge likes to decide cases on burden of proof if he can legitimately avoid having to do so. There are cases, however, in which, owing to the unsatisfactory state of the evidence or otherwise, deciding on the burden of proof is the only just course for him to take.
The second reason is that the dictum can only apply when all relevant facts are known, so that all possible explanations, except a single extremely improbable one, can properly be eliminated.
The third reason is that the legal concept of proof of a case on a balance of probabilities must be applied with common sense. It requires a judge of first instance, before he finds that a particular event occurred, to be satisfied on the evidence that it is more likely to have occurred than not. If such a Judge concludes, on a whole series of cogent grounds, that the occurrence of an event is extremely improbable, a finding by him that it is nevertheless more likely to have occurred than not, does not accord with common sense. This is especially so when it is open to the Judge to say simply that the evidence leaves him in doubt whether the event occurred or not, and that the party on whom the burden of proving that the event occurred lies has therefore failed to discharge such burden.

In my opinion Bingham J adopted an erroneous approach to this case by regarding himself as compelled to choose between two theories, both of which he regarded as extremely improbable, or one of which he regarded as extremely improbable and the other of which he regarded as virtually impossible. He should have borne in mind, and considered carefully in his judgment, the third alternative which was open to him, namely, that the evidence left him in doubt as to the cause of the aperture in the ship’s hull, and that, in these circumstances, the shipowners had failed to discharge the burden of proof which was on them.’

Lord Brandon of Oakbrook
[1985] 2 All ER 712, [1985] 1 WLR 948, [1985] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [1985] UKHL 15
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At First InstanceThe Popi M; Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmonds 1983
The parties disputed the cause of the loss of a ship. The experts suggested different but improbably explanations; each supported as the most likely explanation only because any other hypothesis was regarded as almost (if not altogether) impossible. . .
ApprovedLa Compania Martiartu v Royal Exchange Assurance Corporation CA 1923
The court found, on limited evidence, that the ship in respect of which her owners had claimed for a total loss of perils by sea, had in fact been scuttled with the connivance of those owners.
Scrutton LJ said: ‘This view renders it . .

Cited by:
CitedGibbs and others v Rea PC 29-Jan-1998
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided . .
CitedMoiz Ahmed Siddiqui, Ishrat Siddiqui/Bhajan Singh Sohanpal v Council of the London Borough of Hillingdon TCC 15-Apr-2003
The claimants sought damages for cracks in their house caused by the roots of trees on the defendant’s land.
Held: The claimants had failed to establish by evidence that the tree roots were the cause of the damage. The claim failed. . .
CitedUCB Group Ltd v Hedworth CA 4-Dec-2003
The defendant challenged the claimant’s right to possession under a legal charge. She appealed a finding that she had not established the undue influence of her husband, a solicitor.
Held: A lender who received a voidable security was entitled . .
CitedExel Logistics Ltd v Curran and others CA 30-Sep-2004
The claimants sought damages for personal injuries after a crash in a Land Rover maintained by the defendants. The defendants appealed findings of negligence in failing properly to inflate the rear tyres, in continuing despite the danger, and poor . .
CitedStephens and Another v Cannon and Another CA 14-Mar-2005
The claimants had purchased land from the defendants. The contract was conditional on a development which did not take place. The master had been presented with very different valuations of the property.
Held: The master was not entitled to . .
CitedFlannery and Another v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd, Trading As Colleys Professional Services CA 18-Feb-1999
A judge at first instance taking a view on an expert’s report should give reasons in his judgment for that view. On appeal, where no reasons had been given, he should be asked to provide reasons by affidavit for the appeal. An inadequately reasoned . .
CitedMcTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd OHCS 31-May-2005
The pursuer sought damages after her husband’s death from lung cancer. She said that the defenders were negligent in having continued to sell him cigarettes knowing that they would cause this.
Held: The action failed. The plaintiff had not . .
CitedCarisbrooke Shipping Cv5 v Bird Port Ltd ComC 13-Sep-2005
. .
CitedUltraframe (UK) Ltd v Fielding and others ChD 27-Jul-2005
The parties had engaged in a bitter 95 day trial in which allegations of forgery, theft, false accounting, blackmail and arson. A company owning patents and other rights had become insolvent, and the real concern was the destination and ownership of . .
CitedKastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (‘Kastor Too’) ComC 4-Dec-2002
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore . .
CitedHill Street Services Company Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Burjor Mistry ChD 19-Oct-2007
The claimant company said that the bank had allowed money to be removed from its account without authority. Originally it said the second defendant, its former director had authrised the payments. On the second defendant denying this, the company . .
ExplainedIde v ATB Sales Ltd and Another CA 28-Apr-2008
Each appellant challenged how the judge had decided between alternative proofs of causation of the respective loss. In Ide, the claimant asserted a fault in a cycle handlebar, and in Lexus, the claimant asserted that it caught fire whilst . .
CitedFosse Motor Engineers Ltd and others v Conde Nast and National Magazine Distributors Ltd and Another TCC 20-Aug-2008
The claimant said that the defendant’s employees had negligently started a fire which burned down the claimant’s warehouse. There was limited evidence to establish the cause.
Held: The claim failed. The scientific evidence did not point to any . .
CitedPiper v Hales QBD 18-Jan-2013
The claimant owned a very vauable vintage Porsche racing car. It was hired to the defendant. The car suffered severe mechanical damage whilst being driven, and the insurers declined liability.
Held: The Defendant as hirer was under an . .
CitedNulty and Others v Milton Keynes Borough Council CA 24-Jan-2013
There had been two fires at a depot owned by the claimants. The fires were found to have been likely to have been caused by the deceased employee. His insurers had repudiated liability saying that the had not been notified oin a timely fashion.
CitedMilton Keynes Borough Council v Nulty and Others TCC 3-Nov-2011
There had been two fires at depots owned by the claimants. They brought proceedings against an employee, but his insurers repudiated liability saying that they had not been promptly notfied of the claim.
Held: The first fire was caused either . .
CitedLove v Halfords Ltd QBD 8-Apr-2014
The claimant had purchased a new bicycle from the defendants who also maintained it. Several months later, the steerer tube broke causing an accident and severe injury. The cycle had been finally assembled by the defendant after importation, but . .
CitedThe Worshipful Company of Grocers v Keltbray Group Holdings Ltd and Another QBD 19-May-2016
Allegation that a collapse in a nearby building caused a water leak in the claimant’s nearby building.
Held: the effects of the collapse did not cause the major cracking at Grocers’ Hall which was reported on following the flood. The Grocers . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Evidence, Damages, Insurance, Evidence

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.184697

AJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner and Others: QBD 11 Mar 2013

An insurance company had engaged a main contractor to handle repairs to houses insured under its policies. The contractor had engaged the claimant subcontractor to carry out the works at the defendants’ homes, but then went into insolvent liquidation before the works were paid for. The claimant now sought payment direct from the insured. The defendants denied any contract with the claimant, despite mandates signed by them.
Held: The claims failed. It was both a perfectly possible reading of the mandate and far more consonant with the commercial common sense of the situation to interpret it to mean that, although the insurer will be responsible for paying the cost of the insured losses, the householder will remain liable for all other costs, namely the policy excess and any works not covered by the insurance.
The court considered the possible application of the contra preferentem rule: ‘The fact that the contra proferentem rule is a matter of common law whereas regulation 7 (2) is a creature of statute is no reason to differentiate between their applications; the 1999 Regulations give wholesale effect to a European Directive and it is unnecessary to suppose that they were intended to affect the common law relating to contractual interpretation. The occasions on which the principle of construction and the common-law rule apply are the same: their operation is limited to cases of genuine interpretative doubt or ambiguity’
The contracts were to be determined on the standard rules for construction. If the terms were unambiguous then the 1999 Regulation had no application, and ‘ it is impermissible to prejudge the construction of the mandates by presupposing an analysis that ignores them. The mandates were in fact signed. A common reason for having written express contracts is to impose and assume liabilities that would not otherwise be implied.’

Keyser QC J
[2013] EWHC 484 (QB)
Bailii
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 7
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
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: . .
CitedSt Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No.2) CA 1973
When looking at a contract ‘one must construe the document according to the natural meaning of the words contained in the document as a whole, read in the light of surrounding circumstances.’
The contra preferetem rule can only come into play . .
CitedMira Oil Resources of Tortola v Bocimar NV ChD 1999
Colman J discussed the application of the contra preferentem rule: ‘Further, this is not a case where the meaning of the words is so finely balanced that the contra proferentum rule should be applied in favour of the owners. If in the view of the . .
CitedAssociation of British Travel Agents Ltd v British Airways Plc CA 2000
Sedley LJ described the common-law rule of contra preferentem, that any doubt as to the meaning of contractual words will be resolved by construing them against the party that put them forward, as ‘a principle not only of law but of justice’ and . .
ApprovedThe Financial Services Authority v Asset L I Inc and Others ChD 8-Feb-2013
The court was asked whether so-called ‘land-banking’ schemes were ‘collective investments schemes’ within section 235.
Held: Andrew Smith J discussed the difference in effect between the contra preferentem rule, and regulation 7 of the 1999 . .
CitedRainy Sky Sa and Others v Kookmin Bank SC 2-Nov-2011
Commercial Sense Used to Interpret Contract
The Court was asked as to the role of commercial good sense in the construction of a term in a contract which was open to alternative interpretations.
Held: The appeal succeeded. In such a case the court should adopt the more, rather than the . .
CitedPink Floyd Music Ltd and Another v EMI Records Ltd CA 14-Dec-2010
The defendant appealed against an order made on the claimant’s assertion that there were due to it substantial underpayments of royalties over many years. The issues were as to the construction of licensing agreements particularly in the context of . .
CitedDirect Travel Insurance v McGeown CA 12-Nov-2003
The contra proferentem interpretation rule is to be invoked only in cases of genuine doubt or ambiguity. Auld LJ said: ‘A court should be wary of starting its analysis by finding an ambiguity by reference to the words in question looked at on their . .
CitedDu Plessis v Fontgary Leisure Parks Ltd CA 2-Apr-2012
The claimant, who owned a holiday mobile home on the respondent’s site challenged the raising of site fees, saying that the contract was unfair. Previously all site fees were equal within the site, but the respondent had introduced a scheme which . .
CitedBrown and Davis Ltd v Galbraith CA 1972
The defendant’s car was damaged in a collision. It was taken to the plaintiff’s garage for repair. The defendant’s insurers contracted with the defendant to pay for the repairs for a specified amount. The plaintiff carried out repair work, and the . .
CitedCurtis v Chemical Cleaning and Dyeing Co CA 1951
The defendant sought to rely on an exemption clause in its garment cleaning contract. The defendant’ shop assistant had said that it extended only to damage to beads and sequins, whereas by its terms it covered all liability for damage to articles . .
CitedAmalgamated Investment and Property Co Ltd (in Liq) v Texas Commerce International Bank Ltd CA 1982
The court explained the nature of an estoppel by convention.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘The doctrine of estoppel is one of the most flexible and useful in the armoury of the law. But it has become overloaded with cases. That is why I have not gone . .
CitedPeekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd CA 6-Apr-2006
Moore-Bick LJ discussed whether the court should give effect to a non-reliance clause in a contract saying: ‘It is common to include in certain kinds of contracts an express acknowledgement by each of the parties that they have not been induced to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Insurance, Consumer

Leading Case

Updated: 02 November 2021; Ref: scu.471743

Cleaver v Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association: CA 1892

The deceased’s executors objected to his widow maintaining action on a trust created by an insurance policy in her favour under the Act. She had been convicted of his murder. The executors’ case was that ‘it is against public policy to allow a criminal to claim any benefit by virtue of his crime.’
Held: The trust for the wife failed, because she had murdered her husband, but that the policy still was an asset of his estate, and the company had to pay the executors.
Fry LJ said: ‘The principle of public policy invoked is in my opinion rightly asserted. It appears to me that no system of jurisprudence can with reason include amongst the rights which it enforces rights directly resulting to the person asserting them from the crime of that person. If no action can arise from fraud it seems impossible to suppose that it can arise from felony or misdemeanour . . This principle of public policy, like all such principles, must be applied to all cases to which it can be applied without reference to the particular character of the right asserted or the form of its assertion.’ and ‘In the construction of Acts of Parliament . . general words which might include cases obnoxious to this principle (of public policy) must be read and construed subject to it.’

Fry LJ
[1892] 1 QB 147, 1891 4 All ER 335, 61 LJQB 128, 65 LT 220
Married Women’s Property Act 1882 11
England and Wales
Cited by:
AppliedDavitt v Titcumb ChD 1989
The defendant bought a house in joint names with the deceased, but was subsequently convicted of her murder. The house was purchased with the assistance of an endowment life policy in their joint names. Whilst he was imprisoned, the policy was used . .
CitedDunbar (As Administrator of Tony Dunbar Deceased) v Plant CA 23-Jul-1997
The couple had decided on a suicide pact. They made repeated attempts, resulting in his death. Property had been held in joint names. The deceased’s father asked the court to apply the 1982 Act to disentitle Miss Plant.
Held: The appeal was . .
CitedTroja v Troja 1994
(New South Wales) The court explained the application of the forfeiture rules in cases involving murder. Historically: ‘In a time of attainder, forfeiture, and common exaction of the death penalty following conviction for murder, the niceties of the . .
CitedJ v S T (Formerly J) CA 21-Nov-1996
The parties had married, but the male partner was a transsexual, having been born female and having undergone treatment for Gender Identity Dysphoria. After IVF treatment, the couple had a child. As the marriage broke down the truth was revealed in . .
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 . .
CitedCommissioner of Police for the Metropolis v Reeves (Joint Administratix of The Estate of Martin Lynch, Deceased) HL 11-Feb-1999
The deceased was a prisoner known to be at risk of committing suicide. Whilst in police custody he hanged himself in his prison cell. The Commissioner accepted that he was in breach of his duty of care to the deceased, but not that that breach was . .
CitedSecretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Another v Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council SC 6-Apr-2011
The land-owner had planning permission to erect a barn, conditional on its use for agricultural purposes. He built inside it a house and lived there from 2002. In 2006. He then applied for a certificate of lawful use. The inspector allowed it, and . .
CitedChallen v Challen and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Forfeiture rule disapplied after spousal abuse
The claimant sought the disapplication of the forfeiture rule. She had been convicted of the manslaughter of her seriously abusive husband. The court considered whether a conviction for murder set aside and replaced with one of manslaughter was a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Wills and Probate

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.185187

Prudential Insurance Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners: 1904

Contract for payment of sum on event

The Insurance company provided endowment insurance polices. They disagreed with the Commissioners as to whether these were policies of insurance and thus as to how they fell to be stamped. Life insurance was defined in the 1891 Act as ‘insurance upon any life or lives or upon any event or contingency relating to or depending upon any life or lives.’ The instrument that was to be presented for stamping in that case was the policy of insurance and ‘Policy of insurance’ was defined to mean ‘every writing whereby any contract of insurance is made’.
Held: Channell J defined a contract of insurance: ‘It seems to me that for the purpose of determining whether that contract comes within the definition [of life insurance] we must look at it as a whole, and not split it up into two separate parts . . Whereby for some consideration, usually but not necessarily for periodical payments called premiums, you secure for yourself some benefit, usually but not necessarily the payment of a sum of money, upon the happening of some event . . A contract of insurance, then, must be a contract for the payment of a sum of money, or for some corresponding benefit such as the rebuilding of a house or the repairing of a ship, to become due on the happening of an event, which event must have some amount of uncertainty about it, and must be of a character more or less adverse to the interest of the person effecting the insurance.’

Channell J
[1904] 2 KB 658
Stamp Act 1891
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedDepartment of Trade and Industry v St Christopher Motorists Association Ltd 1974
The defendant company provided for the hire of a chauffeur if the insured was disqualified from driving.
Held: Contracts of insurance are not confined to contracts for the payment of money, but may include a contract for some benefit . .
CitedDigital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd v The Financial Services Authority CA 29-Nov-2011
Parties appealed against on order for the winding up of the company. The Authority (FSA) had said that the company which supplied warranties to owners of digital receiver boxes were providing regulated insurance services, but that the companies were . .
CitedDigital Satellite Warranty Cover Ltd and Another v Financial Services Authority SC 13-Feb-2013
The appellants challenged an order for the dissolution of their company under the 2000 Acts. They had provided warranties for assorted consumer electrical goods which amounted to insurance, but said that they were not required to be registered under . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Stamp Duty

Leading Case

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.471980

Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others: ComC 20 Jun 2008

The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance companies and as to whether the compensation under the Acts counted as damages under the policies. The syndicate said that damages are quintessentially sums which fall to be paid by reason of some breach of duty or obligation.
Held: The question for consideration is what the document would convey to a reasonable person having all the background knowledge which would have reasonably been available to the parties at the time of the contract. There was no clear evidence that the parties had considered the detailed provisions carefully, but was rather a collection of standard clauses. There was no reason to think that the purpose of the Underlying Policy was anything other than the protection of the police fund against claims by third parties for personal injury or damage to property. The claimant was entitled to be indemnified by the defendant pursuant to the Excess Policy in respect of any liability of the claimant to pay compensation under the 1886 Act.

Walker J
[2008] EWHC 1375 (Comm), [2009] Lloyd’s Rep IR 39, [2009] 2 All ER (Comm) 200
Bailii
Police Act 1996, Riot (Damages) Act 1886
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedRe Hooley Hill Rubber and Royal Insurance Co CA 1920
When interprting a contract, it is assumed that the draftsman works with a view to certainty of sense and standardisation of terms. Bankes LJ said: ‘Courts should be chary in interfering with the interpretation given to a well-known document and . .
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 . .
CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
CitedSunport 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. . .
CitedYorkshire Water Services Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc and Others (1) CA 20-Aug-1996
The court was asked whether the costs of flood alleviation works were recoverable under public liability insurance policies.
Held: A claim for the costs of remedial action taken to mitigate future losses were not covered by the terms of the . .
CitedF and K Jabbour v Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property 1953
The court was asked as to the effect of foreign regulations on the ownership of a right of action under an insurance policy, and for that purpose examined whether the plaintiff’s claim against the insurance company was a ‘mere right to claim . .
CitedHall Brothers Steamship Company Limited v Young CA 1939
The shipowners appealed a decision that the underwriters were not liable under collision liability clause. Their ship had collided with another at Dunkirk when the steering gear failed. Under french law the pilot was not liable since he had not been . .
CitedTesco Stores Ltd v Constable and others CA 16-Apr-2008
Tesco voluntarily agreed to indemnify a third party for economic loss. When that third party claimed under the indemnity for economic losses arising out of damage to property of another, Tesco sought to claim under its own public liability insurance . .
CitedTioxide Europe Ltd v CGU International Plc and others CA 20-Jul-2005
The court considered how an insurance contract should be construed. Langley J said: ‘The general principle is that the proper construction is to be determined by the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used in the contractual and commercial . .
CitedCharterhouse Development (France) Limited v Sharp ChD 1998
French courts had held the claimant liable to remedy the deficiency of an insolvent company’s assets under a French law. The insured now sought repayment by its insurers, who denied that this was a payment of damages.
Held: The payment was . .
CitedLancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd CA 3-Apr-1996
The defendant agreed to indemnify the insured ‘in respect of all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation arising out of’ various matters including wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The . .
MentionedRylands v Fletcher HL 1868
The defendant had constructed a reservoir to supply water to his mill. Water escaped into nearby disused mineshafts, and in turn flooded the plaintiff’s mine. The defendant appealed a finding that he was liable in damages.
Held: The defendant . .
CitedCharter Reinsurance Co Ltd v Fagan and Others HL 24-May-1996
The re-insurers appealed against a finding that they were liable to make payment under a contract which required them to pay ‘sums actually paid.’ They said that the company having become insolvent, no payment would in fact be made.
Held: The . .
CitedJ W Dwyer Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver 1967
The owner of a jewellery shop claimed to recover compensation from the police for damage to his shop in a smash and grab raid. Since there were more than 3 robbers, the police accepted that there had been a riot but defended the claim on the basis . .
CitedDH Edmonds Ltd v East Sussex Police Authority CA 6-Jul-1988
The plaintiffs Brighton jewellers sought compensation from the police authority for a raid on their premises by three or four men. Kenneth Jones J at first instance held that the incident did not involve a tumultuous assembly and accordingly the . .
CitedFord v Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District 1921
Bailhache J considered a claim under the 1886 Act: ‘There must be judgment for the plaintiff, and the question of the quantum of damages must be referred.’ . .
CitedKaufmann Brothers v Liverpool Corporation KBD 1916
It was argued that a claim under the 1886 Act was a claim for ‘alleged neglect or default’ within the meaning of the 1893 Act, so that the claim was time-barred under that Act.
Held: The argument failed. The 1893 Act did not apply.
Lush J . .
CitedPitchers v Surrey County Council 1923
In 1919 there was a riot involving Canadian soldiers from a local Camp. They released fellow soldiers in custody and raided the officers’ mess, and damaged and stole the contents of a tailor’s shop and other shops known as ‘Tin Town’ – a group of . .
CitedBearmans Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver CA 1961
Sellers LJ said: ‘The second plaintiffs had paid some andpound;5,000 for that theft; and for their respective losses these plaintiffs sought to recover damages under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886’
The court considered that a liberal approach . .
CitedBartoline Limited v Royal Sun Alliance plc 2007
The claimant sought an indemnity under the Public Liability Section of a Combined Policy for: (i) expense incurred by the Environment Agency under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 cleaning up water courses of pollutants after a fire on . .
CitedScott (for and Behalf of All Underwriting Members of Syndicates 401 and 857 at Lloyd’s) v The Copenhagen Reinsurance Company (UK) Ltd CA 16-May-2003
Where an insurance policy required damage to have been caused by an insured risk, the causative link had to be a significant rather than a weak one.
Determining whether transactions are related is therefore an acutely fact sensitive exercise, . .

Cited by:
See AlsoYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority ComC 30-Sep-2008
The owners of the Yarslwood Immigration centre sought damages under the 1886 Act after a riot at the centre caused substantial damage.
Held: The claim failed: ‘The fact that YWIL and GSL [the appellants] were acting as public authorities . .
Appeal fromBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable CA 12-Feb-2009
The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory . .
See AlsoYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .
CitedThe Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd and Others SC 20-Apr-2016
The Court considered the quantification of damages to be awarded to a business suffering under riots under the 1886 Act, and in particular whether such recoverable losses included compensation for consequential losses, including loss of profits and . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.270220

Newbury v Davis: QBD 1974

newbury_davisQBD1974

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
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: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.199925

Bedfordshire Police Authority v Constable: CA 12 Feb 2009

The police had responded to a riot at Yarlswood detention centre. They had insurance to cover their liability under the 1886 Act, but the re-insurers said that the insurance did not cover the event, saying that the liability was for statutory compensation and not in damages as covered by the insurance policy.
Held: The insured’s appeal failed. Once one appreciates that the reason for the 1886 Act placing the burden of paying compensation to the victims of riot damage on the police authority is that the police are responsible for law and order and that they are (notionally) in breach of that responsibility, it seems to me, as an English lawyer, that compensation payable is a sum which the police authority is ‘liable to pay as damages’.

[2009] EWCA Civ 64
Bailii
Riot (Damages) Act 1886 2
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedJ W Dwyer Ltd v Metropolitan Police District Receiver 1967
The owner of a jewellery shop claimed to recover compensation from the police for damage to his shop in a smash and grab raid. Since there were more than 3 robbers, the police accepted that there had been a riot but defended the claim on the basis . .
CitedDH Edmonds Ltd v East Sussex Police Authority CA 6-Jul-1988
The plaintiffs Brighton jewellers sought compensation from the police authority for a raid on their premises by three or four men. Kenneth Jones J at first instance held that the incident did not involve a tumultuous assembly and accordingly the . .
CitedHall Brothers Steamship Company Limited v Young 1938
The insured vessel, Trident, went to Dunkirk and engaged a French pilot whose pilot boat developed a fault in its steering gear which caused her to collide with Trident without Trident being in any way to blame. French law had a provision that . .
CitedHall Brothers Steamship Company Limited v Young CA 1939
The shipowners appealed a decision that the underwriters were not liable under collision liability clause. Their ship had collided with another at Dunkirk when the steering gear failed. Under french law the pilot was not liable since he had not been . .
CitedSunport 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. . .
CitedCharterhouse Development (France) Limited v Sharp ChD 1998
French courts had held the claimant liable to remedy the deficiency of an insolvent company’s assets under a French law. The insured now sought repayment by its insurers, who denied that this was a payment of damages.
Held: The payment was . .
CitedYorkshire Water Services Ltd v Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc and Others (1) CA 20-Aug-1996
The court was asked whether the costs of flood alleviation works were recoverable under public liability insurance policies.
Held: A claim for the costs of remedial action taken to mitigate future losses were not covered by the terms of the . .
CitedBartoline Limited v Royal Sun Alliance plc 2007
The claimant sought an indemnity under the Public Liability Section of a Combined Policy for: (i) expense incurred by the Environment Agency under section 161 of the Water Resources Act 1991 cleaning up water courses of pollutants after a fire on . .
Appeal fromBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
See AlsoYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority ComC 30-Sep-2008
The owners of the Yarslwood Immigration centre sought damages under the 1886 Act after a riot at the centre caused substantial damage.
Held: The claim failed: ‘The fact that YWIL and GSL [the appellants] were acting as public authorities . .

Cited by:
See AlsoYarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and Others v Bedfordshire Police Authority CA 23-Oct-2009
The claimant sought to recover the costs of damage to their centre following a riot, saying that under the 1886 Act, they were liable. It appealed against a ruling that they were unable to claim as a public authority, saying that the 1886 Act was . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Police, Insurance

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.282613

Post Office v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd: CA 1967

A contract of insurance provided an indemnity for ‘all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation in respect of loss of property’. The claim was by the Post Office against a contractor, Potters, for damaging one of their cables which in consequence the Post Office had to repair. Before the Post Office had sued Potters, Potters went into liquidation. The Post Office sued the insurance company direct purporting to make use of the 1930 Act, but before the Post Office’s claim against Potters had been the subject of adjudication or agreement.
Held: A third party claimant could not sue the insurer directly, pursuant to the 1930 Act, until the existence and amount of the liability of the insured had been established by judgment or award or agreement. The reason for this was that the rights transferred by the Act were subject to the terms of the policy. Since the insured could not have claimed an indemnity until their liability had been established, the Post Office could be in no better position. The insurers’ argument that the Post Office had no cause of action against the insurers until the establishment of the existence and amount of the liability of the insured was therefore accepted. Though leave was necessary to begin or continue proceedings against a company in liquidation, the court considered that leave ought to be given automatically if the 1930 Act were applicable.
Lord Denning MR said: ‘It seems to me that the insured only acquires a right to sue for the money when the liability to the injured person has been established so as to give rise to a right of indemnity. His liability to the injured person must be ascertained and determined to exist, either by judgment of the court or by award in arbitration or by agreement. Until that is done the right to an indemnity does not arise.’
The liability must be ‘ascertained and determined to exist’, and that this may be achieved by judgment, arbitration award or agreement: ‘In these circumstances I think the right to sue for these moneys does not arise until the liability of the wrongdoer is established and the amount ascertained. How is this to be done? If there is an unascertained claim for damages in tort, it cannot be proved in the bankruptcy; nor in the liquidation of the company. But nevertheless the injured person can bring an action against the wrongdoer. ‘
Salmon LJ said that when the liability is established, it dates from the date when the cause of action arose: ‘The case really resolves itself into this simple question: Could Potters on June 17, 1965, have successfully sued their insurers for the sum of andpound;839 10s 3d which they were denying they were under any obligation to pay the Post Office? Stated in that way, I should have thought the question admits of only one answer. Obviously Potters could not have claimed that money from their insurers. It is quite true that if Potters in the end are shown to have been legally liable for the damage resulting from the accident to the cable, their liability in law dates from the moment when the accident occurred and the damage was suffered. But whether or not there is any legal liability and, if so, the amount due from the Potters to the Post Office can, in my view, only be finally ascertained either by agreement between Potters and the Post Office or by an action or arbitration between Potters and the Post Office. ‘

Lord Denning MR, Salmon LJ
[1967] 2 QB 363, [1967] 1 Lloyds Rep 216
Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930
Citing:
ApprovedWest 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 . .

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 . .
MentionedAer Lingus v Gildacroft Ltd and Another CA 17-Jan-2006
The claimant had been found liable to pay damages for personal injury, and now sought contribution from the defendants. The defendants said that they were out of time since the contribution action had been commenced more than 2 years after the . .
CitedLaw Society of England and Wales and others v Shah and others ChD 30-Nov-2007
Solicitor firms had been made bankrupt leaving a shortfall after thefts from client accounts of over 12 million pounds. The thief had diappeared, and the other partners were now discharged form bankruptcy. The Law Society accepted that it could not . .
AttackedBradley v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd HL 1989
Mrs Bradley was employed by Dart Mill several times from 1933 and 1970 and acquired byssinosis from inhaling cotton dust. The company was wound up in 1975 and dissolved in 1976. In 1984 she applied to the court for pre-action disclosure under . .
CitedTeal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Insurance, Insolvency

Leading Case

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.198401

Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc: PC 24 May 1993

Two insurance companies were liable to contribute equally to an amount payable to a third party. The doctrine of contribution could be modified by contract and the matter should be considered by reference to the parties’ contractual liabilities.
Lord Woolf
Times 09-Jun-1993, [1994] 1 AC 130, [1993] UKPC 22
Bailii
Citing:
Not FollowedLegal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd CA 15-Jan-1991
An insurance company, having paid under the policy to a doubly insured party, sought contribution from the second insurer, who had not been notified of the claim by the insured. The claim for a contribution was one in equity, but since the company . .

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 . .
CitedThe National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd v HSBC Insurance (UK) Ltd ComC 19-Apr-2010
Gavin Kealey QC DHCJ set out the concept of double insurance: ‘Double insurance arises where the same party is insured with two (or more) insurers in respect of the same interest on the same subject-matter against the same risks. If a loss by a . .
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 October 2021; Ref: scu.80208

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 1854
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 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.
Updated: 10 October 2021; Ref: scu.173989

Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Bibby (Inspector of Taxes): ChD 24 Jul 1999

Charges on income are not first to be deducted before computing relevant profits of a company carrying on life assurance business under the Act. This allows such companies to set such charges against the balance of profits chargeable to corporation tax at the full rate, and not merely at the rate set for the policy holders’ share.
Times 24-Jul-1999
Finance Act 1989 88(3)
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoBibby (Inspector of Taxes) v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd; Oakes (Inspector of Taxes) v Equitable Life Assurance Society ChD 17-May-2000
A life insurance company which sold its ‘own purchase shares’ was not prevented by the section from reclaiming the tax credits on associated income distributions. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.85068

Siu 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 policy.
Lord Lloyd said: ‘There are two reasons why their Lordships prefer the decision in Mark Rowlands . . In the first place the words ‘event or events’ in section 2, while apt to describe the loss of the vessel are hardly apt to describe . . liability arising under the common law, as a consequence of the loss of the vessel. Secondly, section 2 must take colour from the short title and preamble to Section 1. By no stretch of the imagination could indemnity insurance be described as a ‘mischievous kind of gaming’. Their Lordships are entitled to give section 2 a meaning which corresponds with the obvious legislative intent.’
Lord Lloyd of Berwick said: ‘For present purposes the law can be summarised shortly. (1) An undisclosed principal may sue and be sued on a contract made by an agent on his behalf, acting within the scope of his actual authority. (2) In entering into the contract, the agent must intend to act on the principal’s behalf. (3) The agent of an undisclosed principal may also sue and be sued on the contract. (4) Any defence which the third party may have against the agent is available against his principal. (5) The terms of the contract may, expressly or by implication, exclude the principal’s right to sue, and his liability to be sued. The contact itself, or the circumstances surrounding the contract, may show that the agent is the true and only principal.’
Lord Lloyd
Gazette 02-Feb-1994, Times 16-Dec-1993, [1994] 2 AC 199, [1994] 1 All ER 213, [1994] 2 WLR 370
Insurance Act 1774 2
Commonwealth
Citing:
AppliedMark 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 . .

Cited by:
CitedFeasey 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 . .
CitedBanca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa v Playboy Club London Ltd and Others SC 26-Jul-2018
The Playboy casino required a reference for a customer, but asked for this through a third party. The bank was not aware of the agency but gave a good reference for a customer who had never deposited any money with them and nor to whom it had issued . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.89287

Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd: ComC 23 Apr 2008

Beatson J
[2008] EWHC 843 (Comm), [2008] Lloyd’s Rep IR 643
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromTemple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd CA 6-Apr-2009
‘In the present case the binder gives Temple certain valuable rights, including a right in Section 27.1 to ‘retain’ commission out of premiums, but they do not include any rights of a security or proprietary nature to which the authority can be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.267064

Axa Versicherung Ag v Arab Insurance Group (BSC): ComC 7 Jul 2015

The Court was asked whether the claimant reinsurer (‘Axa’) is entitled to avoid two reinsurance treaties entered into with the defendant reinsured (‘Arig’) and to recover in consequence the net sum of about US $5.15 million paid to Arig under those two treaties.
Males J
[2015] EWHC 1939 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.550067

North Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others: ComC 22 Apr 2005

[2005] EWHC 665 (Comm), [2005] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 76, [2005] 2 CLC 238
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoNorth Star Shipping Ltd. and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others ComC 27-Oct-2004
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromNorth Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others CA 7-Apr-2006
A claim was made under a marine insurance policy for damage caused to a vessel by an explosion. Underwriters alleged that they were entitled to avoid the policies for (inter alia) non-disclosure of the existence of criminal proceedings in Greece . .
CitedNavigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda SC 22-May-2018
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.224563

Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others v Atlasnavios-Navegacao Lda: SC 22 May 2018

The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from the insurers. The Court of Appeal had rejected the claim allowing the insurers to rely on an exclusion in the clauses relating to malicious acts by a third party.
Held: The ship-owners’ appeal failed. The acts complained of were not aimed at the owners, but at the ship, and that was the essential of the exclusion. ‘clause 1.5 is not apt to cover the present circumstances, and . . the premise on which this appeal reaches the Supreme Court is incorrect. ‘
Lord Mance (Deputy President), Lord Sumption, Lord Hughes, Lord Hodge and, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 26, [2018] 2 WLR 1671, [2018] WLR(D) 317, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 671, [2019] AC 136, [2018] 4 All ER 589, [2018] 2 WLR 1671, [2018] 2 Lloyds Rep 1, [2018] Lloyds Rep IR 448
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC 180320 am Hearing, SC 180320 pm Hearing, SC Summary Video, WLRD
Institute War and Strikes Clauses 1/10/83 with additional perils, cls 1.5, 4.1.5
England and Wales
Citing:
Preliminary Issues ComCAtlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 29-Mar-2012
Trial of preliminary issues in an action in which the Claimant claims under its war risks insurance for the constructive total loss of the vessel ‘B Atlantic’ (‘the Vessel’). Between 7 and 12 August 2007 the Vessel loaded a cargo of coal at . .
At ComCAtlasnavios-Navegacao, LDA v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others ComC 8-Dec-2014
The claimant’s vessel and its crew had been detained after illegal drugs were found to be attached to its hull in port in Venezuela by ship crew members. The ship owners asserted effective total loss.
Held: The owners were entitled to recover . .
At CAAtlasnavios-Navegacao, Lda v Navigators Insurance Company Ltd and Others CA 1-Aug-2016
(The B Atlantic) The court was asked whether Flaux J was right to find that the owners of a ship were entitled to be indemnified by the insurers in respect of the constructive total loss of the vessel under war insurance after detention ‘by reason . .
CitedNishina Trading Co Ltd v Chiyoda Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd (The Mandarin Star) CA 1968
The ship owners had not been paid two months of charter hire due to them, so the master took the cargo. The cargo did not belong to the defaulting charterer, however, but rather to an innocent third party. The insurance clause provided that ‘it is . .
CitedBrough v Whitmore 11-Feb-1791
Provisions sent out in a ship for the use of the crew, are protected by a policy of assurance on the ship and furniture. . .
CitedRickards v Forestal Land, Timber and Railways Co Ltd CA 1941
MacKinnon LJ said: ‘There are two massive volumes of Arnould which purport to deal with The Law of Marine Insurance. They now contain over 1800 pages, and the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, is entitled ‘An Act to codify the Law relating to Marine . .
CitedPanamanian Oriental Steamship Corpn v Wright (The ‘Anita’) 1970
. .
CitedPanamanian Oriental Steamship Corporation v Wright (The Anita) CA 1971
The burden is on Underwriters to bring themselves within an exclusion clause they seek to rely on.
Lord Denning distinguished between what might be described as justified or ‘connected’ political interference on the one hand and unjustified or . .
CitedShell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) QBD 1981
Conspirators disposed of a cargo of oil dishonestly, in South Africa, in breach of sanctions and with a view to profit. Mustill J. considered whether this loss was caused by persons acting maliciously, that is out of spite or ill-will or the like. . .
CitedShell International Petroleum Co Ltd v Gibbs (The ‘Salem’) CA 1982
The conspirators purchased and manned a tanker, The Salem. They chartered her to an innocent charterer, Pontoil SA, for a voyage to Europe carrying a cargo of oil which Pontoil acquired from Kuwait Oil Co in Mina al Ahmadi and agreed to resell to . .
CitedNorth Star Shipping Ltd and others v Sphere Drake Insurance Plc and others ComC 22-Apr-2005
. .
CitedSunport 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. . .
CitedAllen v Flood HL 14-Dec-1898
Tort of Malicicious Inducement not Committed
Mr Flood had in the course of his duties as a trade union official told the employers of some ironworkers that the ironworkers would go on strike, unless the employers ceased employing some woodworkers, who the ironworkers believed had worked on . .
MentionedRegina v Cunningham CCA 1957
Specific Intention as to Damage Caused
(Court of Criminal Appeal) The defendant wrenched a gas meter from the wall to steal it. Gas escaped. He was charged with unlawfully and maliciously causing a noxious thing, namely coal gas, to be taken by the victim.
Held: Byrne J said: ‘We . .
CitedRegina v G and R HL 16-Oct-2003
The defendants, young boys, had set fire to paper and thrown the lit papers into a wheelie bin, expecting the fire to go out. In fact substantial damage was caused. The House was asked whether a conviction was proper under the section where the . .
CitedCory v Burr HL 30-Apr-1883
In a time policy of marine insurance on ship the ordinary perils insured against (including ‘ barratry of the master ‘) were enumerated, and the ship was warranted ‘free from capture and seizure and the consequences of any attempts thereat.’ In . .
CitedIn re Etherington and the Lancashire and Yorkshire Accident Co CA 8-Feb-1909
By the terms of a policy an accident insurance company undertook, if, at any time during the continuance of the said policy, the insured should sustain any bodily injury caused by violent, accidental, external, and visible means, then, in case such . .
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
CitedRoyal Greek Government v Minister of Transport (The Ann Stathatos) 1949
The ship had been chartered, but the crew refused to sail without an escort, in war conditions. The charterer sought to be excused liability under a clause making allowance for ‘insufficiency of crew’.
Held: The presumption against surplusage . .
CitedWayne Tank and Pump Company Ltd v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation Ltd CA 1973
The court discussed the effect of an exception clause in an insurance policy: ‘The effect of an exception is to save the insurer from liability for a loss which but for the exception would be covered. The effect of the cover is not to impose on the . .
CitedHandelsbanken v Dandridge and others CA 30-Apr-2002
The Aliza Glacial
Construction of two standard clauses in the Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls-Time, 1983 edition. Potter LJ treated the vessel’s loss, following the owners’ refusal to meet an outrageous ransom demand by a terrorist organisation, as outside . .
CitedMelinda Holdings Sa v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd ComC 18-Feb-2011
The claimant sought to assert its claim for payment under war risks insurance with the defendant after the insured ship was arrested and detained in Cairo. . .
CitedGlobal Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad SC 1-Feb-2011
An oil rig (The Cendor MOPU) was being transported from Texas to Malaysia. During the voyage, three of the four legs suffered damage. The insurers refused liability saying that the damage was the result of inherent weaknesses in the rig.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.616316

Tioxide Europe Limited v CGU International Insurance Plc and others: QBD 23 Sep 2004

Claim under two excess global liability policies for indemnity against its liability for the ‘pinking’ of UPVC products manufactured and sold by others which included in their formulation a titanium dioxide pigment supplied by Tioxide. Excess layer insurance policies.
The Honourable Mr Justice Langley
[2004] EWHC 2116 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromTioxide Europe Ltd v CGU International Plc and others CA 20-Jul-2005
The court considered how an insurance contract should be construed. Langley J said: ‘The general principle is that the proper construction is to be determined by the ordinary and natural meaning of the words used in the contractual and commercial . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.214301

Sphere Drake Insurance plc and Another v Basler Versicherungs-Gesellschaft; The Orion Insurance Company plc v Basler Versicherungs Gesellschaft and Anr (Consolidated actions): ComC 29 Apr 1997

Insurance – agreement to limit liability – binding nature – discharge from further liability
Moore-Bick J
Unreported, 29/04/1997
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoSphere Drake Insurance Plc and Another v Orion Insurance Company Plc ComC 11-Feb-1999
ComC Multi-party run-off agreement made in 1975 to govern parties’ contributions towards run-off based on estimates of likely claims- asbestos-related claims led to final liabilities being vastly greater than . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.220773

Inversiones Manria SA v Sphere Drake Insurance Co. plc (The Dora): 1989

The court considered the relevance of moral hazard for an insurer accepting an insurance proposal: ‘When accepting a risk underwriters are properly influenced not merely by facts which, with hindsight, can be shown to have actually affected the risk but with facts that raise doubts about the risk’.
Phillips J
[1989] 1 LI LR 69
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.245963

Glengate-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 fire destroyed architects’ drawings which were not insured and caused a substantial delay in the development. The issue was whether a proviso contained in G’s policy, that at the time of the damage the claimant must have ‘an insurance covering the interest of the insured in the property at the premises against such damage’ could be construed as giving G an insurable interest in the Architects drawings even though they were not the owners.
Held: The appeal was dismissed. The word ‘interest’ contained in the proviso should be construed in context, depending on the insured’s relation to the damaged property. An insured could recover if he had rights in existence at the time of the loss which were affected by the damage e.g. profits from a forward sale. However, the Architects’ drawings were not property in which he had a personal interest at the time of the fire. They were the property of the Architects, and G were under no obligation to insure themselves against their loss.
Such loses through delay were not recoverable.
Auld LJ said: ‘the nature of the insurable interest in each case must depend on the type of cover in issue’.
Auld LJ, Neill LJ
Ind Summary 22-Jan-1996, Times 12-Jan-1996, [1996] 1 Lloyds Rep 614, [1996] 2 All ER 487
England and Wales
Citing:
ApprovedSharp 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 . .
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 . .

Cited by:
CitedFeasey 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 July 2021; Ref: scu.80870

Cox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others: CA 16 May 1995

Successful Lloyds names were entitled to enforce their claims in the normal time sequence. The transfer of the rights of the insured against the insurer under section 1(1) the 1930 Act takes place on the event of insolvency, even if the insured’s liability to the third party has not yet been established. In handling claims, instructing solicitors and so forth, the insurers act as agents for the company and are entitled to reimbursement for their expenses.
Lord Justice Saville said: ‘Under the Act the rights of the insured against the insurer are transferred to the third party on (in the case of an insured company) the making of a winding up order etc.: see s.1(b) of the Act. It follows from this that a statutory transfer can take place before the obligation of the insurer to pay arises i.e. before the liability of the insured has been established. In such an event, since it is clear from the authorities that the third party is to be put in no better position than the insured, the third party does not obtain the right to immediate payment until the liability of the insured is established. .
That right [the right of the third party to immediate payment by the insurers] only arises when, in each case, the claim is established, just as that right, while owned by the insured, would also arise only when the particular claim in question was established. It is only when that right arises that the insurers come under the correlative obligation to make payment. To my mind it follows that as each claim is established (whether before or after the statutory assignment), the right to payment arises and thus the amount of available insurance is in effect diminished, so that when it is exhausted later established claims have no right to an indemnity. . .’
Lord Justice Saville
Independent 09-Jun-1995, Times 16-May-1995, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 437
Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930 1(1)(b)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromCox v Bankside Members Agency Ltd and Others QBD 27-Jan-1995
Some agents had policies against which there were likely to be various calls, either because several claims were being pursued against the same agents by different Lloyd’s Names, or because the policies were group policies covering several agents . .

Cited by:
CitedAXA Reinsurance (UK) Plc v Field HL 12-Sep-1996
The terms originating ’cause’ and ‘event’ are to be differently construed, one means a continuing situation and the other refers to a discrete event.
Under the ‘LMX Spiral’ Lloyds’ syndicates wrote substantial excess of loss business.The cross . .
CitedLloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings and others v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Ltd HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had paid out many claims for mis-selling pensions. They sought to claim under their insurance. The claims met the requirements of the principle insurance, but the insurance companies sought to impose a limit by aggregation.
Held: . .
Dicta adoptedFirst 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 . .
CitedFreakley and Curzon Insurance Ltd v Centre Reinsurance International Company and Another; similar CA 11-Feb-2005
Claims were made for personal injury caused by asbestos. The re-insurers sought declaratory relief against the head insurers, and the administrators of the insolvent company. The administrators sought declarations in turn. Curzon insured the company . .
CitedFreakley and others v Centre Reinsurance International Company and others HL 11-Oct-2006
When it became clear that the company would be financially overwhelmed by asbestos related claims, a voluntary scheme of arrangement was proposed under s425. The House was now asked whether the right to re-imbursement of the company’s lawyers after . .
CitedTeal Assurance Company Ltd v WR Berkley Insurance (Europe) Ltd SC 31-Jul-2013
An international engineering company had several layers of professional indemnity insurance. The top later did not cover claims originating in the US or Canada. The several insurers now disputed apportionment of liability between them. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.79585

Brown v KMR Services Ltd: CA 26 Jul 1995

Allied Maples had made a corporate takeover of assets and businesses within the Gillow group of companies, during which it was negligently advised by the defendant solicitors in relation to seeking protection against contingent liabilities of subsidiaries within the vendor’s group. Allied Maples would have been better off, competently advised, if, but only if: (a) it had raised the matter with Gillow and sought improved warranties and (b) Gillow had responded by providing them.
Held: Allied Maples had to prove point (a) on a balance of probabilities, but point (b) should be assessed upon the basis of loss of the chance that Gillow would have responded favourably.
The scale of losses alone did not make damages claim too remote if it was nevertheless foreseeable. Liability for damages for negligent advice depends upon type not scale of loss.
Claims against underwriters are separate for each year, set-off not allowed.
Stuart-Smith, Hobhouse and Millett LJJ
Times 26-Jul-1995, Gazette 15-Sep-1995, Independent 13-Sep-1995, [1995] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 513, [1995] 4 All ER 598
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromBrown v KMR Services Ltd; Sword-Daniels v Pitel and Others QBD 19-Apr-1994
A Lloyds agent who was asked to find a low risk syndicate has a duty to do so. . .

Cited by:
CitedTransfield Shipping Inc of Panama v Mercator Shipping Inc of Monrovia ComC 1-Dec-2006
The owners made substantial losses after the charterers breached the contract by failing to redliver the ship on time as agreed.
Held: On the facts found the Owners’ primary claim is not too remote. To the knowledge of the Charterers, it was . .
CitedPerry v Raleys Solicitors SC 13-Feb-2019
Veracity of a witness is for the court hearing him
The claimant, a retired miner, had sued his former solicitors, alleging professional negligence in the settlement of his claim for Vibration White Finger damages under the government approved scheme for compensation for such injuries. At trial, the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 07 June 2021; Ref: scu.78703

PCW 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.
Independent 08-Sep-1995, Times 10-Oct-1995, [1996] 1 WLR 1136
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHIH 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 04 June 2021; Ref: scu.84618

AC Ward and Son Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd and Others: ComC 3 Dec 2009

[2009] EWHC 3122 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See AlsoAC Ward and Son v Catlin (Five) Ltd and Others CA 10-Sep-2009
The defendant insurers appealed against refusal of summary judgment in its favour in defending a claim under a policy. The claimants premises had been burgled. The insurer said that the claimant had failed to respect warranties given by it as to . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 May 2021; Ref: scu.381742

In Re Continental Assurance Company of London Plc (In Liquidation) (2): ChD 14 Jan 1999

The rules are intended to provide a comprehensive and unitary scheme of management of company liquidations, and in voluntary liquidation, the date of the resolution commencing the dissolution is to be used as the date of the winding up order.
Gazette 10-Feb-1999, Times 14-Jan-1999
Insurance Companies (Winding Up) Rules 1985 95 L2
England and Wales

Updated: 14 May 2021; Ref: scu.81817

Seddon v Binions: CA 1978

The Court gave guidance on the proper method of interpreting a term of a motor insurance policy which defines the limitations of use subject to which the policy provides cover. Roskill LJ: ‘Inevitably, where one has a phrase such as ‘social, domestic or pleasure purposes’ used in a policy of insurance . . there will be cases which will fall on one side of the line and cases which will fall on the other side. For my part, however much claims managers might wish it otherwise, I do not believe it is possible to state any firm principle under which it can always be predicted which side of the line a particular case will fall. It must depend on the facts of the particular case; and the facts of particular cases will vary infinitely in their detail.’ and ‘It seems to me that the solution to the problem can best be reached in this case by asking the question: what was the essential character of the journey in the course of which the particular accident occurred?’ and ‘It may well be that there will be cases, as there have been in the past, where the essential character . . of a particular journey was of a particular kind – and that that essential character will not be altered in the crucial respects merely because, incidental to that journey, something happens in the way of giving a lift to a friend as an act of courtesy or, to borrow Mr Justice du Parcq’s expression [in Passmore v Vulcan Boiler and General Insurance Co Ltd (1936) 54 Ll L R 92], charity.’ Megaw LJ: ‘[I]n general, I should have thought that there is something that can clearly be called, as I would put it, a primary purpose, by which I intend the same meaning, I think, as Roskill LJ intended in using the phrase ‘essential character of the journey’. If there be such a primary purpose, or essential character, then the Courts should not be meticulous to seek to find some possible secondary purpose, or some inessential character, the result of which could be suggested to be that the use of the car fell outside the proper use for the purposes of which cover was given by the insurance policy.’
Roskill LJ, Megaw LJ
[1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 381, [1978] RTR 163
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedKeeley (Widow of Terence Noel James Keeley Deceased) v Pashen and Wren Motor Syndicate 1202 at Lloyd’s CA 10-Nov-2004
The driver had driven his car at a crowd of people intending to frighten them. Instead one had been killed. The insurers resisted liability saying that the use of the car for this purpose and as it was being used as a taxi, was not use for social . .
AppliedCaple v Sewell and others CA 9-Nov-2001
. .
CitedAXA Insurance UK Ltd v EUI Ltd (T/A Elephant Insurance) QBD 14-May-2020
The claimant insurer had insured a garage in respect of a car it used for loan to customers when their own car was being repaired. There was a collision on the customer driving home from work. The defendant insurer was the driver’s own insurer. The . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 May 2021; Ref: scu.220134

Arab Bank Plc v John D Wood Commercial Ltd (In Liquidation) and others: CA 25 Nov 1999

Having once recovered damages against a valuer for a negligent survey, there was nothing to stop a lender recovering also under a policy of insurance under a mortgage indemnity guarantee, and so the lender was not required to give credit for monies already received. Such policies were taken out for the benefit of the lender not the borrower, and the insurance company being subrogated to the lender, no double recovery was involved.
Mance LJ
Times 25-Nov-1999, Gazette 08-Dec-1999, [2000] 1 WLR 857
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedGoldstein v Levy Gee ( A Firm) ChD 1-Jul-2003
There had been a dispute between shareholders, and the defendant was called upon to value the company. He issued a tender for valuers to value the properties. Complaint was made that the tender was negligent in its description of the basis for . .
CitedRoger Michael and others v Douglas Henry Miller and Another ChD 22-Mar-2004
Property had been sold by the respondents as mortgagees in possession. The claimants said the judge had failed to award the value of the property as found to be valued, and had not given a proper value to a crop of lavender.
Held: In . .
CitedLowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
CitedSS (Sri Lanka), Regina (on The Application of) v The Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 15-Jun-2018
The court was asked whether, in cases heard by the First-tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) where the credibility of the appellant is in issue, there is a rule that a delay of more than three months between the hearing of oral evidence . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.77841

Single Buoy Moorings Inc v Aspen Insurance UK Ltd: ComC 13 Jul 2018

Teare J considered the without prejudice rule: ‘In my judgment an exception can only be allowed where it is of the same character as one already established or where it is an incremental but principled extension of an existing exception, as was the exception in Oceanbulk v TMT.’
Teare J
[2018] EWHC 1763 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedBriggs and Others v Clay and Others ChD 25-Feb-2019
Defendants’ application to exclude evidence said to be ‘without prejudice’ The case concerned a pension scheme for employees within a group of companies. In a prior action by way of a Part 8 claim brought by the trustees of the scheme, the court had . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 May 2021; Ref: scu.619842

Layher Ltd v Lowe and Others: CA 8 Jan 1997

The insurers became insolvent, and re-insurers sought to escape liability saying that no sums had been paid out to trigger the re-insurer’s liability.
Held: Re-Insurers were liable under a policy requiring them to pay out on sums paid out by the insurer even though no notice of claim had immediately been given. The phrase ‘likely to give rise to a claim’ to describe an event that will engage the duty to notify the insurer describes an event with at least a fifty per cent chance that a claim against the plaintiff would eventuate.
Times 08-Jan-1997, [1996] EWCA Civ 1231, [2000] Lloyd’s IR 510
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedMacCaferri Ltd v Zurich Insurance Plc ComC 19-Jun-2015
maccafferiCoC201506
The claimant manufacturer challenged a refusal of indemnity from his insurers, the defendants under its product liability policy. An end user consumer had been injured. The insurer said that the claimant had delayed on notifying the possible claim. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 April 2021; Ref: scu.82973

Lancashire County Council v Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd: CA 3 Apr 1996

The defendant agreed to indemnify the insured ‘in respect of all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation arising out of’ various matters including wrongful arrest, malicious prosecution and false imprisonment. The insurer contended that the use of the word ‘compensation’ excluded awards of exemplary damages.
Held: The contention was rejected. Insurance for local authorities and police authorities against vicarious liability including for criminal liability and for exemplary damages is not unlawful. The words of the clause ‘all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay as compensation’ was not clear as to its extent, and was not to be limited to any claim for compensation as such. Exemplary damages went beyond pure compensation but were included. Nor was there any public policy against insuring for liability for criminal conduct.
Simon Brown LJ discussed the use of public policy as an aid to construction: ‘The only way in which public policy can properly be invoked in the construction of a contract is under the rule ut res magis valeat quam pereat: if the words are susceptible of two meanings, one of which would validate the particular clause or contract and the other render it void or ineffective, then the former interpretation should be applied even though it might otherwise, looking merely at the words and their context, be less appropriate.’ and
‘Although I accept Mr. Glasgow’s submission that the natural and ordinary meaning of ‘compensation’ in the context of a legal liability to pay damages is one which excludes any element of exemplary damages, I cannot accept that this meaning is wholly clear and unambiguous. On the contrary it involves very much a literal, lawyer’s understanding of the term and is one which would not command universal acceptance. Many, including no doubt most recipients, would regard compensation to mean instead all damages (of whatever character and however calculated) payable to the victim of a tort.’
Lord Justice Staughton, Lord Justice Simon Brown and Lord Justice Thorpe
Gazette 05-Jun-1996, Times 08-Apr-1996, [1997] QB 897, [1996] EWCA Civ 1345, [1996] 3 All ER 545, [1996] 3 WLR 493, [1996] CLC 1459
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedAB v South West Water Services Ltd CA 1993
Exemplary and aggravated damages were claimed in an action for nuisance arising out of the contamination of water by the defendant utility.
Held: Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘A defendant accused of crime may ordinarily be ordered (if . .
CitedRiches v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 20-Feb-1985
The defendant published serious defamatory allegations against several plaintiff police officers. The defendant newspaper appealed against an award of andpound;250,000 exemplary damages for their defamation of the respondent police officers.
Cited by:
CitedBarrett v Universal-Island Records Ltd and others ChD 15-May-2006
The claimant was entitled to share in the copyright royalties of Bob Marley and the Wailers, and claimed payment from the defendants. The defendants said that the matters had already been settled and that the claim was an abuse of process, and also . .
CitedBedfordshire Police Authority v Constable and others ComC 20-Jun-2008
The authority insured its primary liability for compensation under the 1886 Act through the claimants and the excess of liability through re-insurers. The parties sought clarification from the court of the respective liabilities of the insurance . .
CitedMulcaire v News Group Newspapers Ltd ChD 21-Dec-2011
The claimant, a private investigator had contracted with the News of the World owned by the defendant but since closed. He had committed criminal offences in providing information for the paper, had been convicted and had served his sentence. He . .
CitedJetivia Sa and Another v Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others SC 22-Apr-2015
The liquidators of Bilta had brought proceedings against former directors and the appellant alleging that they were party to an unlawful means conspiracy which had damaged the company by engaging in a carousel fraud with carbon credits. On the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 April 2021; Ref: scu.82914

AXA Reinsurance UK Plc v Field: CA 10 Oct 1995

Liability limitation for insurers also binds re-insurers of same contract.
Times 10-Oct-1995, [1996] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 26
England and Wales
Citing:
Reversed on appeal toAXA Reinsurance (UK) Plc v Field HL 12-Sep-1996
The terms originating ’cause’ and ‘event’ are to be differently construed, one means a continuing situation and the other refers to a discrete event.
Under the ‘LMX Spiral’ Lloyds’ syndicates wrote substantial excess of loss business.The cross . .
Confirmed on appeal fromAXA Reinsurance Plc v Field ComC 27-Jul-1995
cw Insurance – agreement to limit liability – claims arising from one cause – personal indemnity insurance . .

Cited by:
Confirmed on appeal toAXA Reinsurance Plc v Field ComC 27-Jul-1995
cw Insurance – agreement to limit liability – claims arising from one cause – personal indemnity insurance . .
Reversed on appeal fromAXA Reinsurance (UK) Plc v Field HL 12-Sep-1996
The terms originating ’cause’ and ‘event’ are to be differently construed, one means a continuing situation and the other refers to a discrete event.
Under the ‘LMX Spiral’ Lloyds’ syndicates wrote substantial excess of loss business.The cross . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.78034

Marchant and Eliot Underwriting Ltd v Higgins: CA 12 Jan 1996

‘Pay now sue later’ clauses in agency contracts is not breach of EU treaty.
Times 12-Jan-1996, Lloyd’s List January 10 1996, [1996] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 31, [1996] CLC 327, [1996] 3 CMLR 349, [1997] ECC 47, [1996] 5 Re LR 63
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromMarchant and Eliot Underwriting Ltd v Dr Higgins ComC 24-Oct-1995
cw European Union – competition – Lloyd’s – article 85(1) – RSC Order 14 – cash call on underwriters – unlawful attempt to enforce anti-competitive object of Central Fund – Agency Agreement Bye-law – standard . .

Cited by:
Appealed toMarchant and Eliot Underwriting Ltd v Dr Higgins ComC 24-Oct-1995
cw European Union – competition – Lloyd’s – article 85(1) – RSC Order 14 – cash call on underwriters – unlawful attempt to enforce anti-competitive object of Central Fund – Agency Agreement Bye-law – standard . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.83402

Dhak v Insurance Company of North America (Uk) Ltd: CA 8 Feb 1996

A death which occurred after inhaling vomit whilst drunk is not a ‘bodily injury; and there was no liability under the relative insurance policy.
Independent 20-Feb-1996, Times 08-Feb-1996, [1996] 1 WLR 936
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedHawley v Luminar Leisure Ltd and others CA 24-Jan-2006
hawley_luminarCA2006
The claimant was assaulted and severely injured at a night club by a doorman supplied to the club by a third party company now in liquidation. He claimed the club was the ‘temporary deemed employer’ of the doorman. He also sought to claim under the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 April 2021; Ref: scu.79954

Harbour Assurance Co (UK) Ltd v Kansa General International Insurance Co Ltd: CA 7 Apr 1993

An action was brought by re-insurers for a declaration that reinsurance policies were void for illegality, and that the plaintiffs were not liable under them. The illegality alleged was that the defendants were not registered or approved to carry on insurance or reinsurance business under the Insurance Companies Acts. The illegality was denied, and the defendant sought a stay and reference to arbitration.
Held: A stay was granted. An arbitration clause in an insurance contract was separate from the main contract with the effect that (a) invalidity of the main contract did not deprive the arbitrator of jurisdiction, and (b) the arbitrator had jurisdiction to decide the question of illegality of the main contract.
Ralph Gibson LJ: ‘Mr Longmore pointed out that a party to a contract the making of which he says was induced by fraud, would be surprised to be told that he is bound to have the issue tried by an arbitrator appointed under a clause in that contract. He also pointed out that when such a party alleges that the contract is void for illegality, he might well be astonished to be told that the issue of that illegality is to be determined by an arbitrator appointed under it.
There is, I think, force in these comments, but I add that in my view they are no more than forceful comments. Mr Justice Steyn said that the question of fraud or initial illegality was capable of being referred to arbitration. He did not qualify the clearly stated principle that if the validity of the arbitration clause itself is attacked the issue cannot be decided by the arbitrator. His reference to direct impeachment was, as I understand his judgment, to distinguish an attack upon the clause otherwise than by the logical proposition that the clause falls within the containing contract. When it is said that the contract was induced by fraud it may well be clear that, if it was, the making of the independent arbitration clause was also induced by fraud.’
Hoffmann LJ: ‘Mr Longmore therefore accepts, as he must, that for some purposes the arbitration clause is treated as severable and may survive the termination or even the avoidance with retrospective effect of all the other obligations under the contract .. He submits however that the severability doctrine cannot apply to any rule which prevents the contract from coming into existence or makes it void ab initio. In particular, it does not apply to a statute or other rule of law which makes the contract void for illegality.
It seems to me impossible to accept so sweeping a proposition. There will obviously be cases in which a claim that no contract came into existence necessarily entails a denial that there was any agreement to arbitrate. Cases of non est factum or denial that there was a concluded agreement, or mistake as to the identity of the other contracting party suggest themselves as examples. But there is no reason why every case of initial invalidity should have this consequence.’
Ralph Gibson LJ, Hoffmann LJ
Gazette 07-Apr-1993, [1993] 1 QB 701, [1993] 1 Lloyd’s Law Reports 455
Arbitration Act 1979 1
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromHarbour Assurance Co (Uk) Ltd v Kansa General International Insurance Co Ltd 1993
The Court said that older (pre Heyman v Darwins Ltd) authorities about the width of arbitration clauses had to be approached with some care and that the words ‘arising from the contract’ have almost invariably been treated as ‘words of very wide . .

Cited by:
CitedAbner Soleimany v Sion Soleimany CA 4-Mar-1998
The parties were Iranian Jews, father and son. The son arranged to export carpets from Iran in contravention of Iranian law. The father and son fell into dispute about their contracts and arranged for the issues to be resolved by the Beth Din . .
CitedLesotho Highlands Development Authority v Impregilo Spa and others HL 30-Jun-2005
The House had to consider whether the arbitrator had acted in excess of his powers under s38, saying the arbitrator had misconstrued the contract. The arbitrator had made his award in different currencies.
Held: The question remained whether . .
CitedFiona Trust and Holding Corp and others v Privalov and others ComC 20-Oct-2006
The parties disputed whether their claim should be arbitrated.
Held: A claim as to whether the contract itself had been made was not one which could be arbitrated by provisions in that contract. It does not arise ‘under’ the contract. The . .
CitedFiona Trust and Holding Corporation and others v Privalov and others CA 24-Jan-2007
The court was asked whether when contracts have been induced by bribery and have been rescinded on discovery of the bribery, that constitutes a dispute which can be determined by arbitration in the context of a common form of arbitration clause.
CitedPremium Nafta Products Ltd (20th Defendant) and others v Fili Shipping Company Ltd and others; Fiona Trust and Holding Corporation v Privalov HL 17-Oct-2007
The owners of a ship sought to rescind charters saying that they had been procured by bribery.
Held: A claim to rescind a contract by reason of bribery fell within the scope of an arbitration clause under which the parties had agreed to refer . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.81228

Malhi v Abbey Life Assurance Co Ltd: CA 2 Jun 1994

An insurance company was to be held to have waived forfeiture for non-disclosure by the insured only after a clear communication to that effect was established. Sufficient knowledge was not to be imputed until the relevant information could be said to have been received by a person authorised and able to appreciate the significance of the information.
Ind Summary 04-Jul-1994, Times 02-Jun-1994
England and Wales

Updated: 09 April 2021; Ref: scu.83347

Crowson v HSBC Insurance Brokers Ltd: ChD 23 Nov 2010

The court was asked whether a person who is not in a contractual relationship with an insurance broker nonetheless has rights of action in tort and/or contract where the insurance to be arranged is also for his benefit.
Bragge M
[2010] EWHC B26 (Ch), [2010] Lloyd’s Rep IR 441
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 02 March 2021; Ref: scu.426469

Baker v Black Sea and Baltic General Insurance Co Ltd: HL 20 May 1998

The question agreed to be before the court was ‘Where an insurer incurs costs in investigating settling or defending claims by his insured, can the insurer recover a proportion of these costs under a quota share or other form of proportional re-insurance?’ the syndicate argued that it was in the nature of a proportional re-insurance contract that the re-insurer takes a part in the entire risk, and that should include the investigation costs.
Held: A Court may not a import clause into a re-insurance clause to give business efficiency as regards the costs incurred by the insurer, of investigating the underlying claim. Though clauses may be added where they reflect undisputed standard commercial practice, the evidence here did not establish such a concensus.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Woolf, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hutton
Gazette 10-Jun-1998, Times 21-May-1998, [1998] UKHL 18, [1998] 2 All ER 833, [1996] LRLR 353
House of Lords, Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedLiverpool City Council v Irwin HL 31-Mar-1976
The House found it to be an implied term of a tenancy agreement that the lessor was to be responsible for repairing and lighting the common parts of the building of which the premises formed part. In analysing the different types of contract case in . .
CitedScottish Metropolitan Assurance Co Ltd v Groom CA 1924
Reinsurance – claim by owner on original policy – failure by reason of scuttling – judgments against owner for costs – impossibility of recovery – claim on reinsurance policy – sue and labour clause
A ship was reinsured under a marine policy . .
CitedInsurance Co of Africa v SCOR (UK) Reinsurance Co Ltd CA 1985
An underlying insurance policy covered a warehouse in Liberia against fire, including $500,000 for buildings and $3 million for contents. The warehouse became a total loss. The owners of the warehouse brought proceedings in the Liberian courts. The . .

Cited by:
CitedTryg Baltic International (UK) Ltd v Boston Compania De Seguros Sa and others ComC 28-May-2004
Four defendants from Argentina sought to have set aside an order for them to be served, saying the appropriate jursidiction, if there was a triable issue, would be Argentina.
Held: The agreements were to be construed according to English Law. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 February 2021; Ref: scu.78096

Blackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club Plc v Avon Insurance Plc and others: QBD 12 Apr 2006

The claimants sought to claim under an insurance policy with the defendants for the injury suffered in training by a footballer which led to his retirement. The insurers said that the player suffered a pre-existing degenerative condition which was the true cause of the symptoms.
Held: Each expert who had examined the footballer found the pre-existing condition. That evidence was overwhelming, and the disability was caused by the DDD. The claim under the insurance policy failed.
Donns J DBE
[2006] EWHC 840 (QB)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
First hearingBlackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club Plc v Avon Insurance Plc, Eagle Star Insurance Company Ltd, AGF Insurance Ltd IC Insurance Ltd ComC 15-Nov-2004
The claimant football club insured its players through the defendants. A footballer injured himself in training and his career was finished. The insurers rejected the claim, and relied upon exception clauses, saying that the true cause was a . .
At Court of AppealBlackburn Rovers Football and Athletic Club Plc v Avon Insurance Plc and others CA 20-Apr-2005
Exclusion clause in insurance contract. . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.240442

Petrofina (UK) Ltd v Magnaload Ltd: 1983

A finding of double insurance requires the same insured to be covered in respect of the same property against the same risks.
Lloyd J held that: ‘a head contractor ought to be able to insure the entire contract works in his own name and the name of all his sub-contractors, just like a bailee or mortgagee, and that a sub-contractor ought to be able to recover the whole of the loss insured, holding the excess over his own interest in trust for the others.’
Lloyd J
[1983] 3 WLR 805, [1983] 3 All ER 35, [1984] QB 127, [1983] 2 Lloyds Rep 91
England and Wales
Cited by:
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 . .
CitedZurich Insurance Plc UK Branch v International Energy Group Ltd SC 20-May-2015
A claim had been made for mesothelioma following exposure to asbestos, but the claim arose in Guernsey. Acknowledging the acute difficultis particular to the evidence in such cases, the House of Lords, in Fairchild. had introduced the Special Rule . .
CitedGard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 20 February 2021; Ref: scu.236417

Co-operative Retail Services Ltd v Taylor Young Partnership, Hoare Lea and Partners (a Firm) and Others: CA 4 Jul 2000

A building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy in the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist electrical subcontractors, Hall, for all risks insurance covering loss or damage to the works from specified perils including fire. Hall entered into a collateral contract with the owner warranting that it had exercised and would exercise all reasonable care and skill in the design and execution of the sub-contract works. A fire occurred causing extensive damage. The owners sued their architects and mechanical and engineering consultants, who brought third party proceedings against Hall. This raised the question whether Hall was liable to the owners in respect of the fire damage, alleged by the third party claimants to have been caused by Hall’s negligence and breach of warranty.
Held: The appeal failed.
[2000] EWCA Civ 207, [2000] BLR 461, [2001] Lloyd’s Ins Law Rep 122
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
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 . .

Cited by:
CitedScottish and Newcastle Plc v G D Construction (St Albans) Ltd TCC 29-Mar-2001
The defendant contracted to refurbish premises belonging to the claimant. A fire caused by a sub-contractor caused damage, and the cost was sought from the defendant. He claimed that the standard form contract excluded its liability, including . .
Appeal fromCo-Operative Retail Services Limited and others v Taylor Young Partnership and others HL 25-Apr-2002
Whilst a substantial new building was being constructed, it was damaged by fire caused by the negligence of several contractors. The case concerned apportionment of liability.
Held: The appeal failed. The parties could by agreement vary the . .
CitedGard Marine and Energy Ltd and Another v China National Chartering Company Ltd and Another SC 10-May-2017
The dispute followed the grounding of a tanker the Ocean Victory. The ship was working outside of a safe port requirement in the charterparty agreement. The contract required the purchase of insurance against maritime war and protection and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 February 2021; Ref: scu.147240

Friends Provident Life and Pensions Limited v Sirius International Insurance Corporation, Guardian Assurance Plc, Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Plc, The Scottish Lion Insurance Company Limited, Lf Insurance Company Limited: QBD 22 Jul 2004

The Hon Mr Justice Moore-Bick
[2004] EWHC 1799 (Comm)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromFriends Provident Life and Pensions Ltd v Sirius International Insurance CA 24-May-2005
The appellants provided excess layer professional indemnity insurance cover on a claims made basis. Insurers complained that although the insured had become aware of possible sources of claims, he had not given notice to the insurer, and had thereby . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 February 2021; Ref: scu.199489

Lloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings Limited (and Others), Abbey National Plc v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Limited, Lee (and Others): CA 8 Nov 2001

Construction of aggregation clauses in insurance contracts
Lord Justice Potter, Lady Justice Hale, And, Lord Justice Longmore
[2001] EWCA Civ 1643, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep PN 211, [2001] Pens LR 325, [2002] CLC 287, [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 113, [2002] 1 All ER (Comm) 42
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal fromLloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings Ltd and others v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Ltd ComC 6-Oct-2000
. .

Cited by:
Appeal fromLloyds TSB General Insurance Holdings and others v Lloyds Bank Group Insurance Company Ltd HL 31-Jul-2003
The applicant had paid out many claims for mis-selling pensions. They sought to claim under their insurance. The claims met the requirements of the principle insurance, but the insurance companies sought to impose a limit by aggregation.
Held: . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 14 February 2021; Ref: scu.166830

Aneco Reinsurance Underwriting Ltd (In Liquidation) v Johnson and Higgins: CA 14 Nov 1997

Claims against insurance brokers for negligence are to be heard at the same time as a claim with regard to repudiation of liability; need for notes of arrangements.
Times 14-Nov-1997
England and Wales
Cited by:
See AlsoAneco Reinsurance Underwriting Limited (In Liquidation) v Johnson and Higgins Limited CA 30-Jul-1999
. .
See AlsoAneco Reinsurance Underwriting Limited (In Liquidation) (a Body Incorporate Under the Laws of Bermuda) v Johnson and Higgins Limited HL 18-Oct-2001
Brokers contracted to obtain re-insurance of risks undertaken by the claimants. They negligently failed to obtain full cover. The question at issue was whether they were liable for the full loss, or whether their duty was limited to obtaining . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.77797

Seele Austria Gmbh and Co Kg v Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Ltd: CA 7 May 2008

The court was asked whether under a policy covering the liability of third parties in a construction project, that policy covered also the costs of gaining access to parts of the building to replace defective parts.
Waller LJ, Moore-Bick LJ, Richards LJ
[2008] EWCA Civ 441
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 February 2021; Ref: scu.267553

Commission v Belgium C-522/04: ECJ 5 Jul 2007

ECJ (Freedom Of Establishment) Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations Freedom of movement for persons Freedom of movement for workers Freedom to provide services Freedom of establishment Free movement of capital Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area Directive 2002/83/EC Tax legislation providing for less favourable treatment of contributions to occupational pension schemes paid to insurance undertakings established abroad Taxation in Belgium of capital and surrender values paid to beneficiaries who have transferred their residence abroad Tax convention preventing double taxation Representative responsible.
[2007] EUECJ C-522/04
Bailii
European
Citing:
OpinionCommission v Belgium C-522/04 ECJ 3-Oct-2006
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Articles 18, 39, 43, 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty and Articles 28, 31, 36 and 40 of the EEA Agreement – Articles 5(1) and 53(2) of Directive 2002/83/EC of the . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 03 February 2021; Ref: scu.258191