No limits? Non-party costs against insurers

The jurisdiction to make a costs order against a non-party was first recognised in 1986.[1] There is now a wealth of guidance on non-party costs, including well-developed principles in relation to insurers, although the appellate courts continue to emphasise that this is an exercise of discretion, and that these are guidelines, ‘not… a rule-book[2]. This means that, as new factual scenarios arise such as the PIP breast implant litigation[3], the boundaries of non-party costs orders against insurers continue to be tested.

Basic ingredients

The basic ingredients for a non-party costs application are that:

  • An insurer has funded litigation
  • The litigation has been lost and an adverse costs order has been made against the insured
  • The insured is unable to pay the costs


The jurisdiction to make an order for costs against a non-party costs arises under s 51of the Senior Courts Act 1981. This provides that costs in civil proceedings are ‘in the discretion of the court’, and that the court shall have full power to determine by whom and to what extent the costs are to be paid.[4]


Balcombe LJ said in Symphony Group plc v Hodgson[5] that an order for payment of costs by a non-party will always be ‘exceptional’, but this is liable to mislead in the context of applications for non-party costs orders against insurers. As Phillips LJ said in T G A Chapman Ltd v Christopher[6] in relation to liability insurers, it must be rare for litigation to be funded, controlled and directed by a third party motivated entirely by its own interests, and although this is not extraordinary in the context of the insurance industry, that is not the test. The test is whether these features are extraordinary in the context of the entire range of litigation which come before the courts – and Phillips LJ said that he had no doubt that they were.

Solely or predominantly

Phillips LJ referred in Chapman v Christopher to a third party motivated ‘entirely’ by its own interests, reflecting the facts of that case. But in most cases, a liability insurer can credibly say that it is acting at least partly in the interests of its insured, and in Cormack v Excess Insurance Co Ltd[7], the Court of Appeal made clear that that is not sufficient to prevent a non-party costs order being made. In Cormack v Excess, Auld LJ referred[8] to what Sir Wilfrid Greene MR said in Groom v Crocker[9] about insurers being entitled to decide how to conduct the litigation provided that they did so in what they bona fide – in good faith – considered to be the common interest of themselves and their insured, and said that it might be sufficient for a finding of exceptionality that an insurer’s self-interest, though not its exclusive motivation (or effect) in its conduct of litigation, predominated over that of the insured to such an extent and in such circumstances that it strayed beyond this.

Auld LJ said that it was relevant to ask whether the insurer, when its insured was approaching or at risk of exceeding the limit of his indemnity cover, behaved solely in its own interest as if it were the defendant to the proceedings. It is important to recognise that, as Auld LJ said, this issue is distinct from the question of the reasonableness or justification of a tactical decision in litigation, such as whether to pursue or maintain a defence to an action. Once the defence has failed and an application for non-party costs is being considered, those are irrelevant considerations.

‘The’ real party or ‘a’ real party

The non-party need not be ‘the’ real party to the litigation; it is enough that they be ‘a’ real party. In Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd[10], Lord Brown said[11]:

Where, however, the non-party not merely funds the proceedings but substantially also controls or at any rate is to benefit from them, justice will ordinarily require that, if the proceedings fail, he will pay the successful party’s costs. The non-party in these cases is not so much facilitating access to justice by the party funded as himself gaining access to justice for his own purposes. He himself is “the real party” to the litigation… Consistently with this approach, Phillips LJ described the non-party underwriters in T G A Chapman Ltd v Christopher… as “the defendants in all but name”. Nor, indeed, is it necessary that the non-party be “the only real party” to the litigation…, provided that he is “a real party in … very important and critical respects”’.

Liability insurance

Liability insurers invariably fund and take over the defence of the proceedings, and benefit from them, but something more than this is required for a finding on an application for non-party costs that the non-party liability insurer has not merely funded the proceedings, but substantially also controlled or at any rate was to benefit from them so that it is appropriate for an order to be made.

(1) Controlling the litigation

In Citibank NA v Excess Insurance Co Ltd[12], Thomas J said[13] that there were two aspects to the conduct of litigation:

  • First, obtaining information to draft the defence, instructing an expert, considering the statements of case, disclosure of documents, preparing witness statements, providing information to counsel, etc.
  • Secondly, the giving and receiving of advice and the taking of the decisions as to whether to defend the case through to trial or to attempt to settle the litigation.

Thomas J said that although the involvement of the actual defendant in the first of these activities was a factor, ‘the decisive factor as to who has the conduct of litigation must be the control and direction exercised through the giving and receiving of advice and the taking of the decisions’.

(2) Benefitting from the litigation

Where a defence is run sensibly and reasonably for the benefit of both the insured and insurers, and the court is unlikely to view the insurer as benefiting from the litigation to the extent required for a non-party costs order, and is unlikely to exercise its discretion to make an order in that situation. Simply benefiting from the litigation is not enough: this is why the issue of whether insurers have allowed their interests to predominate over that of the insured is so important in this context. Consider for example the facts of two of the cases referred to above:

  • Chapman v Christopher: The defendant, Mr Christopher, lived at home with his mother and had no assets. He did though have liability insurance with a limit of indemnity of £1m under his mother’s household insurance policy. The claimants’ warehouse and factory were extensively damaged in a fire which was caused by Mr Christopher’s negligence: he had thrown a lighted match which landed in an open tin of beeswax which immediately caught fire. The insurers were the defendants in all but name: by reason of the Third Parties Rights Against Insurers Act 1930, they were contingently liable to the claimants up to the policy limit of £1m. They took the decision to contest the litigation and subsequently conducted the defence, in an attempt to avoid or reduce their liability to the claimants. Phillips LJ described this as a ‘paradigm case for the exercise of the court’s discretion under s 51 to make a costs order against a non-party’.
  • Cormack v Excess: The insured were civil engineers with a reputation to protect, and the Court of Appeal accepted that the decision to defend was not taken entirely by the insurer, and that, until liability was determined, the proceedings were not defended solely for the benefit of the insurer. However, once liability was determined, and the judgment exceeded the limit of indemnity, the proceedings in relation to quantum were defended entirely for the benefit of the insurer. The insurer was ordered to pay the claimant’s costs of the quantum stage of the action.

(3) Conflict of interest

Where solicitors are on the record for the insured in proceedings, and are acting under a joint or dual retainer for the insured and for the liability insurer, it seems that a failure to recognise or deal appropriately with a conflict of interest, and as a result to allow the interests of the insurer to predominate over those of the insured, will strongly incline a court to exercise its discretion in favour of making a non-party costs order.

XYZ v Travelers

In XYZ v Travelers, the PIP breast implant litigation, the insured went into insolvent administration. A mixture of insured and uninsured claims were being pursued in group litigation, and the effect of the Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’) was that the more uninsured claims which were pursued, the lower the proportion which the insurer would have to contribute to the insured’s liability for common costs. The insured wanted to disclose to the claimants whose claims were uninsured that that was the case, but were advised by the legal team appointed by insurers not to do so. There was a conflict of interest, which no one recognised at the time. The Court of Appeal said that this was not decisive, but they did agree with the judge that a non-party costs order should be made.

(1) ‘Asymmetry’

One particular feature which made the case ‘exceptional’ was the ‘obvious asymmetry’ in insurers’ position: if the insured had succeeded on the preliminary issues then all claimants (whether insured or uninsured) would have been liable equally to contribute towards the insured’s costs which, ultimately, would have been to the insurer’s advantage; but failure on those very same issues meant that, unless a non-party costs order was made, insurers were ultimately liable for only approximately 32 per cent of the claimants’ costs. This asymmetry arose because of the terms of the GLO.

(2) Non-disclosure of the insurance position

In Cormack v Excess, Auld LJ said[14] that as there was no obligation in litigation to disclose the limit of indemnity, it was difficult to see why an insurer should be penalised in costs for not doing so, and that a court should be cautious before regarding a failure to disclose the extent of cover as sufficiently exceptional to justify the making of a non-party costs order. In Travelers v XYZ, while they based their decision on the asymmetry they identified between the position of the claimants and the insurers referred to above, the Court of Appeal identified a number of reasons why Auld LJ’s observation did not apply:[15]

  • It was not alleged in Cormack v Excess that the failure to disclose the cover limit had any causative effect on costs. In Travelers v XYZ, by contrast, the judge was satisfied that, if the lack of insurance had been disclosed, costs would not have been incurred.
  • The non-disclosure in Cormack v Excess was the cover limit. The non-disclosure in Travelers v XYZ was the non-existence of any insurance at all.
  • The policy itself and the pre-action protocols in Travelers v XYZ required any response to a letter of claim to include details of the insurance policy.

Underlying and linking all these points seems to be a single factor, which is that the claims, both insured and uninsured, were subject to a GLO:

  • The GLO gave rise to the asymmetry in relation to the recoverability of costs
  • The GLO gave rise to the conflict of interest between insurers and the insured about the desirability of disclosing the fact that some of the claims were uninsured, and in turn to the flawed advice given to the insured by the legal team not to disclose that fact
  • The GLO formed the basis for Thirlwall J’s case management decision[16] that the insured should provide her with information about its insurance position
  • The GLO resulted in the common issues of both insured and uninsured claims being tried together, so that the insurers were funding the costs of defending all the claims, including the uninsured claims

Against this background, although the information about the insurance position provided to the judge was not disclosed to the parties, the Court of Appeal said that it must have been obvious to the insured and to insurers that the perception of the uninsured claimants was that all of the underlying claims were insured.[17] In these circumstances, it is unsurprising that the Court of Appeal decided that ‘on balance’ the flawed advice given by the legal team appointed by insurers in relation to the disclosure of the insurance position was relevant to the insurers’ liability for costs, although not decisive, and that it was not unjust for the insurers to bear some responsibility for the advice given under the joint retainer[18].

BTE insurance

The same principles apply in relation to before the event (‘BTE’) legal expenses insurers as to liability insurers. Unlike liability insurers, BTE insurers will not usually control the proceedings, or have an interest in the result of the litigation save insofar as it affects their liability to pay costs. They are therefore not generally balancing their interests with those of the insured, and will not usually be exposed to a risk of a non-party costs order.[19]

ATE insurance

After the event (‘ATE’) legal expenses insurance has features which are distinct from BTE insurance: ATE insurers decide which cases to insure after the cause of action has arisen, and the recoverability of the policy premium may depend on the outcome of the litigation.

In Herridge v Parker[20], Mr Recorder James Thom QC, sitting as a judge of the County Court, held[21] that ATE insurance was in the public interest as it facilitated access to justice and that, by analogy with the case-law in relation to solicitors acting under conditional fee agreements, an ATE insurer would not be ordered to pay costs as a non-party simply by virtue of issuing a policy which was insufficient, either because the policy was avoided, or because the limit of indemnity was exceeded.

The judge also observed that an ATE insurer who chose to prolong the proceedings for the purposes of seeking to negotiate a favourable exit might well be acting in a sufficiently self-interested way to become a ‘real party’. In those circumstances, a non-party costs order might be made against the insurer in respect of the additional costs. The same logic would apply if a BTE insurer acted in this way.

Subrogated claims

Where insurers have funded a subrogated recovery, they will usually pay the costs if the action is unsuccessful. But if they do not, an application for a non-party costs order may be made against them, and the same principles applied as on an application against liability insurers. ‘What has been sauce for the goose would have been sauce for the gander’, as Phillips LJ said in Chapman v Christopher, in which although the focus was on the position of the liability insurers who had funded the unsuccessful defence, both parties were ‘litigants in name only’, as the claim itself was brought by underwriters exercising subrogated rights.

Alison Padfield QC

  1. In Aiden Shipping Co Ltd v Interbulk [1986] AC 965, HL.
  2. Petromec Inc v Petroleo Brasileiro SA Petrobras [2006] EWCA Civ 1038, para 10 (Laws LJ); Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v XYZ [2018] EWCA Civ 1099, para 30 (Lewison LJ; Patten LJ agreeing).
  3. Travelers Insurance Co Ltd v XYZ [2018] EWCA Civ 1099.
  4. Section 51(1) and (3).
  5. Symphony Group plc v Hodgson [1994] QB 179, CA.
  6. [1998] 1 WLR 12, CA.
  7. [2002] Lloyd’s Rep IR 398, CA.
  8. At 406, cols 1 to 2.
  9. [1939] 1 KB 194, CA.
  10. [2004] UKPC 39, [2004] 1 WLR 2807.
  11. At para 25.
  12. [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 122.
  13. At 133, col 1.
  14. At 406, col 2.
  15. At para 44 (Lewison LJ; Patten LJ agreeing).
  16. XYZ v Various [2013] EWHC 3643 (QB).
  17. At para 42 (Lewison LJ; Patten LJ agreeing).
  18. At para 45 (Lewison LJ; Patten LJ agreeing).
  19. See Murphy v Young & Co’s Brewery [1997] 1 WLR 1591, CA.
  20. [2014] Lloyd’s Rep IR 177.
  21. At paras 89-96.

BILA lecture – No limits? Non-party costs orders against insurers

On 20 July 2018, I will be giving a lecture to the British Insurance Law Association on non-party costs orders against insurers. These orders can be made under s 51(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981.

In the lecture, I will be explaining and discussing:

  • The courts’ jurisdiction to make costs orders against non-parties under s 51(3)
  • Situations where liability or legal expenses insurers may be at risk of non-party costs
  • The impact of policy limits
  • Non-party costs and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Acts 1930 and 2010
  • The insurer’s conduct and the incurring of costs
  • Recent case-law including:
    • Travelers v XYZ [2018] EWCA Civ 1099 (liability insurers)
    • Herridge v Parker & Allianz [2014] Lloyd’s Rep IR 177 (legal expenses insurers)

Do come along if you can. After I’ve given the lecture, I’ll write a blog post on this topic.

[***Update: the blog is now here.***]

Alison Padfield QC

What’s the latest in the Commercial Court? Oral evidence in chief (possibly) and more

The report of the March 2018 meeting of the Commercial Court Users’ Group has just been published.[1]

In short:

Preparations for the disclosure pilot continue, with a likely start date of the end of 2018 or start of 2019. A new working party will consider the use of witness statements in the Commercial Court and whether, for example, there should be provision for some (limited) examination in chief on key issues. Practitioners should be aware of the Court’s Practice Direction on Electronic filing of applications to be dealt with without a hearing issued on 1 February 2018. Statistics suggest the number of cases issued is fairly stable. In arbitration claims, appeals on a point of law under s 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and challenges to the award on grounds of serious irregularity under s 68 rarely succeed.

In more detail:

(1) Practice and procedure

Key points of interest to Commercial Court practitioners:

Disclosure review:

The consultation has been completed and the Rules Committee will consider the results in April/May 2018.

The proposal is for a two-year pilot in the Business and Property Courts in London and on Circuit. There will be an opportunity for feedback and ongoing monitoring and development: the aim is that the proposals will be shaped and fine-tuned during a ‘living’ pilot.

The start date for the pilot is the end of 2018 or start of 2019.

Witness statements vs oral examination in chief:

A new working party is to be put together, with representatives from different interest groups, to consider the use of witness statements in the Commercial Court and possible improvements, such as whether there should be provision for some limited examination in chief, and whether this should be addressed at the Case Management Conference, or would require consideration at the Pre-Trial Review. The proposal is not for not blanket oral examination in chief.

Popplewell J told the meeting that this issue was being raised because there was a fairly widespread feeling that in this area witness statements were not saving costs, let alone representing ‘best evidence’, in contrast with good evidence in chief which is compelling and often best evidence. It was also felt to be unfair on good witnesses that they put in a statement and then faced cross-examination without any opportunity to tell their story live.

Knowles J reminded the meeting that the parties could put forward imaginative solutions at the CMC, such as live examination in chief about a key meeting, and that this would provide a way of seeing what the system was already capable of and evaluating possible routes to reform.[2]

Other points of interest:

  • Electronic filing of applications to be dealt with without a hearing: Applications on CE file which do not comply with the Practice Direction on Electronic filing of applications to be dealt with without a hearing issued on 1 February 2018 will be rejected. Both the content of the Practice Direction, and its tone, make clear that judicial patience has run out: it concludes (the last sentence is in bold in the original): ‘The Judges and staff will no longer root around in the event log trying to find the relevant material, as they do at present. Non-compliant applications will simply be rejected.
  • Commercial Court Guide: A new hard copy is likely to be available in early summer.
  • Shorter and Flexible Trials Schemes: These are currently being reviewed with a view to making them permanent once the current pilot scheme expires in October.

(2) Statistics

The latest statistics suggest that the level of claims issued is fairly stable, at least by reference to recent years.

In arbitration claims, the statistics suggest that permission to appeal on a point of law under s 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 is granted in a reasonable proportion of cases, but that appeals rarely succeed. Similarly, successful challenges to the award on grounds of serious irregularity under s 68 are rare (statistics for successful applications for permission under s 68 do not appear in the report).

Claims issued:

  • Arbitration:
    • Claims under s 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (appeal on point of law):
      • 2017 (to date): applications for permission: 10 of 56 granted; appeals: one successful
      • 2016: applications for permission: nil[3] of 46 granted; appeals: nil successful
      • 2015: applications for permission: 20 of 60 granted; appeals: four successful
    • Claims under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (challenging the award: serious irregularity):
      • 2017 (to date): 47 challenges; nil successful
      • 2016: 31 challenges; nil successful
      • 2015: 34 challenges; one successful
  • Commercial and Admiralty Court:
    • 2017: 987 cases issued[4]
    • 2016: 1003 cases issued
    • 2015 1090 cases issued[5]
  • London Circuit Commercial/Mercantile Court:
    • 2017: 203 cases issued
    • 2016: 180 cases issued
    • 2015: 209 cases issued[6]

Trials: 168 Admiralty and Commercial trials were listed in 2017. Fifty-eight of those took place, which represents a settlement/adjournment rate of 65%.


  • 509 applications were listed for hearing in the Admiralty and Commercial Court in 2017, and 420 of those stood up.
  • 4,878 applications were dealt with by a judge on documents:
    • 4,646 Commercial
    • 124 Financial List
    • 108 Admiralty

Lead times:

Updated lead times are published on the Commercial Court website.

As at 13 March 2018, the date of the meeting:

  • Applications: half a day: April 2018; a day: June 2018
  • Trials: 1-2 days: September 2018; 2-3 days to a week: October 2018; longer hearings from January 2019 onwards.

Alison Padfield QC

  1. The meeting was on 13 March 2018.
  2. The current practice is set out at paragraph H1.6(b) of the Commercial Court Guide (10th Edition, 2017): ‘In an appropriate case the trial Judge may direct that the whole or any part of a witness’s evidence in chief is to be given orally. This course may be taken on the Judge’s own initiative or on application by a party. Notice of an application for such an order should be given as early as is reasonably convenient. It is usually reasonable for any such application to be made at a pre-trial review if one is held.’
  3. This is the figure stated in the report, although it seems low compared to both 2015 and 2017 to date.
  4. By way of comparison, in 2010, 1,100 claims were issued in the Commercial Court and 190 in the Admiralty Court; these figures were a decrease of 16% on 2009: see Judicial and Court Statistics 2010, pp 129-130.
  5. The report says that this figure reflects the spike that occurred before the April 2015 filing fee increase: in March 2015, there were three times the usual number of cases filed.
  6. See the previous footnote.

Expedition in the Commercial Court

There are words which have a meaning in the law which is different, and usually more prosaic, than their ordinary meaning. Expedition is one such word. An order granting expedition of a trial is of course nothing more than an order that it should take place sooner than it would if it were listed to come on for trial in the ordinary way.

The Commercial Court Guide[1] provides that the Commercial Court is able to provide an expedited trial in cases of sufficient urgency and importance,[2] and that a party seeking an expedited trial should apply to the Judge in Charge of the Commercial Court on notice to all parties at the earliest possible opportunity.[3] The application should normally be made after issue and service of the claim form but before service of particulars of claim.[4]

No further guidance is given. A summary of the relevant principles in a judgment of the Commercial Court is therefore welcome. In Apache Beryl I Ltd v Marathon Oil UK LCC[5], Males J heard an application in mid-August 2017 for an expedited trial to take place at the beginning of the next term, which was then in two months’ time or less, with a view to judgment being given, or at least a decision being given if possible, before 21 October 2017. The claimant’s position was that without a decision by 21 October 2017 as to its rights and obligations under an agreement with the defendant, it was likely to lose the benefit of a put and call option in which that was the longstop date.

Males J said that it was agreed between the parties that the decision whether to order expedition was discretionary, and that there were four factors to be taken into account:[6]

  • A threshold question of whether objectively there was urgency
  • The state of the Commercial Court list
  • The procedural history including delay by the applicant
  • Whether there would be any irremediable prejudice to the respondent

Of these, he said, the fourth factor – which might also be referred to as the good administration of justice or whether a fair trial was possible – was the most important.[7] Males J referred to the decision of the Court of Appeal in W L Gore & Associates GmbH v Geox SpA[8] for the principle that the Commercial Court seeks to assist commercial people in resolving their disputes, but does so in a way which is consistent with the interests of others and with justice and fairness, so that a critical matter in deciding to order expedition is whether a fair trial is possible.[9] If a fair trial is not possible, it necessarily follows that an unfair trial should not be ordered. On the other hand, if a fair trial is possible and there is a prospect that the court can accommodate it, the approach set out in Gore v Geox would strongly encourage the court to do so.[10]

Males J decided that a fair trial was possible and ordered an expedited trial starting on 16 October 2017, ie two months later. His assessment of the four factors inevitably depended on the facts of the case, but certain of his observations have wider relevance:

(1) The judge was willing to approach the application on the basis that it might but would not necessarily be necessary to stand out from the list another case which had been fixed for a considerable time. He recognised that if one of those trials was to be vacated, this would be at considerable expense to the parties in whatever case was selected, and that would no doubt leave them with a real and justified sense of having been unfairly treated.[11]

(2) The claimant had known about the longstop date of 21 October 2017 since December 2016, but sought expedition only in August 2017. Proceedings were started in mid-May but expedition was not sought at that stage as it could have been and should have been in accordance with the Commercial Court Guide. To some extent, the judge found, this was a deliberate, tactical decision by the claimant not to apply for expedition, although he also accepted that there was a hope that matters could be resolved by agreement and that it was only after a lengthy meeting on 31 July 2017 that it became apparent that this hope was to be disappointed.[12] The procedural history was therefore a factor against expedition, but not a decisive factor; it would be ‘disproportionately penal’ to refuse the application on this ground if it was otherwise appropriate to order expedition.[13]

(3) Particulars of Claim, a Defence and a Reply had been served together with various requests for information, and the defendants proposed to serve a Rejoinder. The judge said that the pleadings tended to make the dispute appear more complex than it really was, and that what was needed was a succinct and clear statement of each party’s position on the key issues.[14]

(4) Disclosure had not taken place, and the judge observed that this was case in which disclosure was likely to be limited – possibly to documents which each party relied on with scope for specific requests where necessary and possibly some disclosure on one particular issue which he identified.[15] There would be some factual and expert witness evidence, but this was likely to be limited.[16

(5) Urgent directions needed to be given, and the judge said that he would hold a case management conference the following day.[17]

Alison Padfield

  1. Admiralty and Commercial Courts Guide (10th Edition, last updated September 2017).
  2. Para J1.1.
  3. Para J1.2.
  4. Para J1.2.
  5. [2017] EWHC 2258 (Comm).
  6. Para 11.
  7. See paras 11-12 and 23.
  8. [2008] EWCA Civ 622.
  9. See paras 12-13.
  10. Para 23.
  11. Paras 19-20.
  12. Para 21.
  13. Para 22.
  14. Paras 26-27.
  15. Para 28.
  16. Para 28.
  17. Para 31.

A tale of two solicitors – a new twist on inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal makes a good subject for a short, end-of-term post about the equitable discretion – now codified in CPR 31.20 – to restrain the use of a privileged document which has been disclosed in error.

In Atlantisrealm Ltd v Intelligent Land Investments (Renewable Energy) Ltd,[1] the Court of Appeal added a ‘modest gloss[2] to the principles it had formulated in Al Fayed v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis[3] and applied in Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA v Director of the Serious Fraud Office (No 2)[4] in relation to CPR 31.20. The gloss extended the principle from the solicitor who first reviewed disclosure, and who did not appreciate that a document had been disclosed in error, to his ‘more percipient’ colleague, who did. The Court of Appeal also rejected the suggestion that where the mistake as to disclosure is made by a very junior lawyer, that lawyer has to give evidence in order for the principle to apply.

CPR 31.20 provides: ‘Where a party inadvertently allows a privileged document to be inspected, the party who has inspected the document may use it or its contents only with the permission of the court’. In Atlantisrealm, a junior lawyer made a mistake in categorising an email, labelling it disclosable rather than either privileged or requiring review by Mr Cook, a more senior lawyer. The email was disclosed and subsequently inspected. Mr Fallon, a solicitor for the opposing party, Intelligent Land, reviewed the disclosure but did not spot the mistake. He then had a meeting with another solicitor for Intelligent Land, a Mr Newton.

The email was then sent to witnesses for comment, before Mr Newton sent an email to Mr Cook about arrangements for a settlement meeting, which concluded: ‘I don’t know if you have started your consideration of disclosure yet? The email below will be of interest to you.’ The email, while not fatal to the disclosing party’s case, provided useful ammunition in relation to the issue of contractual construction, and in particular the parties’ shared subjective understanding.

Mr Cook responded immediately, saying that the email was privileged and had been disclosed inadvertently, and requesting its deletion. Mr Newton refused, and Atlantisrealm applied under CPR 31.20 for an injunction prohibiting Intelligent Land from making use of the email.

Mr Cook explained in a witness statement how the disclosure exercise had been carried out. Jackson LJ said that the account of how disclosure had been carried out was in line with what one would expect in any case where people, rather than machines, were carrying out the disclosure exercise: a small team of trainees and junior lawyers carried out a preliminary sift. They identified documents which were obviously disclosable or obviously privileged and referred up to the Mr Cook any documents about which they were unsure. One of the young lawyers made a mistake, putting the email into the ‘disclosable’ category, when he or she ought to have classified it as privileged or referred it to Mr Cook

In Jackson LJ’s view, and in disagreement with the judge below, the fact that the junior lawyer who made the mistake did not give evidence was irrelevant, because it was ‘perfectly clear’ what had happened: ‘Neither [the responsible solicitor], nor the relevant partner, nor the client ever took a considered decision to waive privilege’ in respect of the email, which appeared in the list of documents ‘purely as the consequence of a mistake made by a junior lawyer’.[5] This was therefore a case of inadvertent disclosure within the meaning of CPR 31.20.

The Court of Appeal accepted that the evidence showed that Mr Fallon, the first solicitor to review the documents, had thought that the email had been disclosed deliberately, because it was one of a number of emails between the opposing party and its solicitors which had been disclosed. Jackson LJ held however that the terms of the email from Mr Newton to Mr Cook showed that Mr Newton had appreciated that the email had been disclosed in error: ‘Mr Newton was drawing the email to Mr Cook’s attention in the belief that Mr Cook was unaware of it. If there had been a deliberate decision to disclose privilege in respect of such an important document, it is hardly likely that Mr Cook would have been unaware of it’.[6]

The ‘modest gloss’ which the Court of Appeal added to the principles established in Rawlinson was to allow Moore-Bick LJ’s reference to ‘the understanding of the person who inspected the document[7] to apply in a ‘two solicitor’ situation, so that ‘If the inspecting solicitor does not spot the mistake, but refers the document to a more percipient colleague who does spot the mistake before use is made of the document, then the court may grant relief. That becomes a case of obvious mistake.[8]

All that remained was for the Court of Appeal to consider how the discretion should be exercised: whether to permit the receiving party to make use of the document, or to prohibit its use. This is an equitable jurisdiction, long pre-dating CPR 31.20, and there are no rigid rules.

Atlantisrealm argued that they had made extensive use of the email and their witnesses were well aware of it, and that they would suffer and perceive an injustice if they were not permitted to use it at trial. Jackson LJ observed that the ‘use’ relied on had all taken place after a meeting between Mr Newton and Mr Fallon at which Mr Fallon had drawn Mr Newton’s attention to the email. He concluded that it was not therefore unjust to grant an injunction prohibiting its use; and the judge at first instance had indicated that this was how he would have exercised his discretion. The injunction was therefore granted.

In closing, Jackson LJ made three general observations. First, in the electronic age, even with the help of sophisticated software, disclosure of documents can be a massive and expensive operation. Mistakes will occur from time to time. Secondly, when privileged documents are inadvertently disclosed (as is bound to happen occasionally), if the mistake is obvious, the lawyers on both sides should co-operate to put matters right as soon as possible. And thirdly, the disclosure or discovery procedure in any common law jurisdiction depends upon the parties and their lawyers acting honestly, even when that is against a party’s interest. The duty of honesty rests upon the party inspecting documents as well as the party disclosing documents.[9]

Jackson LJ’s final comment? That it should not be necessary for either the parties or the courts to devote their resources to resolving disputes of this nature between solicitors.[10]

Alison Padfield

  1. [2017] EWCA Civ 1029.
  2. Para 48 (Jackson LJ).
  3. [2002] EWCA Civ 780.
  4. [2014] EWCA Civ 1129, [2015] 1 WLR 797.
  5. Para 37.
  6. Para 43.
  7. At para 15.
  8. Jackson LJ at para 48.
  9. Para 55.
  10. Para 56.

The Business and Property Courts of England and Wales – launch on 4 July 2017

Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Chancellor of the High Court and a former Chairman of the Bar Council, came to the Bar Council meeting on 20 May 2017 to talk to us about the newly-styled Business and Property Courts. This followed the announcement on 13 March 2017 that, from June, the specialist civil courts including those in the Rolls Building in London (the Commercial Court, the Technology and Construction Court, and the Chancery Division of the High Court) were to be known as the ‘Business and Property Courts of England and Wales’. The 13 March 2017 press release said that this was to be the new name for the ‘international dispute resolution jurisdictions’ of England and Wales, and to ‘act as a single umbrella for business specialist courts across England and Wales’. The rebranding therefore has international and domestic implications.

Originally planned for June but delayed due to the General Election, the launch date for the new Business and Property Courts is now 4 July 2017.

One of the aims of the new name is to modernise the image of the Chancery Division. Sir Geoffrey said that the name ‘Chancery Division’ evoked Dickens and Bleak House.[1] The opening chapter of Bleak House is ‘In Chancery’, and Dickens mercilessly satirises the court:

This is the Court of Chancery, which has its decaying houses and its blighted lands in every shire, which has its worn-out lunatic in every madhouse and its dead in every churchyard, which has its ruined suitor with his slipshod heels and threadbare dress borrowing and begging through the round of every man’s acquaintance, which gives to monied might the means abundantly of wearying out the right, which so exhausts finances, patience, courage, hope, so overthrows the brain and breaks the heart, that there is not an honourable man among its practitioners who would not give—who does not often give—the warning, “Suffer any wrong that can be done you rather than come here!”

It is little wonder, then, that the new name is intended not only to be more readily understood both at home and abroad, but also to signal that the bad old days of Jarndyce and Jarndyce[2] really are gone.

By contrast, the Commercial Court has always prided itself on being a modern court responsive to the needs of business:

The Commercial Court was set up in 1895 following demands from the City of London and the business community for a tribunal or court manned by judges with knowledge and experience of commercial disputes which could determine such disputes expeditiously and economically, thereby avoiding tediously long and expensive trials with verdicts given by judges or juries unfamiliar with business practices.[3]

Of course, even the Commercial Court is not immune to increased competition from overseas – as its judges and those of us who practise in it are keenly aware. The Commercial Court in London has an international reputation, and it is hard to see what the Commercial Court has to gain – and easy to see what it has to lose – from being bracketed together with the Chancery Division under a new and unfamiliar name. The City UK, which has worked hard to promote London as a major centre for the resolution of international commercial disputes, has however welcomed the rebranding as a ‘forward-looking decision, indicative of the judiciary’s determination to ensure that Britain’s legal system remains world-leading and at the forefront of dispute resolution globally’ and as giving ‘greater clarity to users about the focus and coverage of legal services available at the Courts’.

On the domestic front, the press release referred to ‘the Commercial Court, (including the Admiralty Court and Mercantile Court)’. This formulation – suggesting that there is a single Mercantile Court which is somehow part of the Commercial Court – is also new. Until now, the Mercantile Courts have formally been separate from the Commercial Court, with their own Mercantile Court Guide (not updated since 2012 and as a result now unusable in some respects), although in London there has been a considerable overlap. The London Mercantile Court is administered by the Commercial Court listing office, and there is considerable fluidity between the judges of the two courts, with Commercial Court judges frequently hearing applications in the London Mercantile Court, and the Mercantile Court judge in London, HHJ David Waksman QC, frequently sitting in the Commercial Court.

It is intended, too, that following the launch on 4 July 2017, the Rolls Building courts in London will co-operate more closely with the Mercantile Courts in the regions. Sir Geoffrey said that in principle no case would be too large to be heard outside London, and that in time, the ‘judicial fire-power’ in specialist centres would increase. Although the press release said that the Mercantile Courts in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Bristol and in Cardiff would be renamed Business and Property Courts, with expansions to Newcastle and Liverpool likely in the future, Sir Geoffrey said that the Mercantile Courts would become Commercial Circuit Courts, and their judges would be Commercial Circuit Judges. In addition, the financial limits in the county court have not been increased for some years, and Sir Geoffrey expressed hope that this would happen, in order to allow them to take on more business.

Sir Geoffrey emphasised that the specialist procedures in the Commercial Court, Technology and Construction Court and Chancery Division will remain: he said that procedures in these courts are an internal matter, and the changes are outward-facing. He added that the question which he is asked most often by barristers is what we should put in the heading of statements of case once the new courts have been formally launched. This perhaps sheds light on the personality traits of some barristers (well known to their families but perhaps less clearly perceived by the barristers themselves), and suggests that they may be less willing than Sir Geoffrey to leave behind the era of Jarndyce and Jarndyce. They will no doubt be relieved to hear that the launch of the Business and Property Courts on 4 July 2017 will bring with it a new Practice Note in which the answer to this[4] and similar procedural puzzles can be found.

Alison Padfield QC

  1. He said, too, that ‘Mercantile Court’ brought to mind an Edwardian gentleman. The name belies the recent origin of these courts: they are in fact a modern creation, and what is now the London Mercantile Court was originally named the Central London County Court Business List.
  2. The case at the heart of Bleak House: ‘Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on. This scarecrow of a suit has, in course of time, become so complicated that no man alive knows what it means. The parties to it understand it least, but it has been observed that no two Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes without coming to a total disagreement as to all the premises.’ (Chapter 1, ‘In Chancery’).
  3. See
  4. Sir Geoffrey did in fact provide the answer at the Bar Council meeting. If I noted it down correctly, the format will (for example) be: ‘IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE’, below that ‘BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS’, and then the name of the court – eg ‘COMMERCIAL COURT’.

Damages for late payment of insurance claims – counting down to 4 May 2017

***An updated version of this post is now available here: Damages for late payment of insurance claims.***


The Enterprise Act 2016 received royal assent on 4 May 2016. From 4 May 2017, a term will be implied by statute into new policies of insurance, and variations to those policies, that if the insured makes a claim under the policy, the insurer must pay any sums due within a reasonable time. This means that, for the first time, there will be a generally available right to damages in English law for late payment of insurance claims. This is in addition to the right to an indemnity under the policy and any interest. The limitation period for a claim for damages for late payment will be one year from the date of payment of the indemnity by the insurer.

The need for this reform

It is a surprising feature of English insurance law that there is no general right to damages for late payment of an insurance claim. This was recently confirmed in the Supreme Court, in a case about jurisdiction (The Alexandros T). This summary of the law by Longmore LJ[1] was approved by Lord Clarke in the Supreme Court[2]:

As a matter of English law, an insurer commits no breach of contract or duty sounding in damages for failure promptly to pay an insurance claim. The law deems interest on sums due under a policy to be adequate compensation for late payment; this is so, even if an insurer deliberately withholds sums which he knows to be due under a policy, see Sprung v Royal Insurance [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 111 approving the decision in The Italia Express (No 2) [1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 281. … English law, moreover, gives no separate contractual remedy to an insured who complains that an insurer has misconducted himself before settling a claim. In either case the remedy of the insured is to sue the insurer and, if no settlement is forthcoming, proceed to judgment.

The principle that there is no right to damages at common law for late payment of damages has long been under attack:

  • It was applied with ‘undisguised reluctance’ by the Court of Appeal in Sprung v Royal Insurance (UK) Ltd[3] in 1996.
  • The Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal in 1997 in a case which raised the issue but the appeal was not heard.[4]
  • Rix LJ described it as ‘controversial’ in 2005, and said that if the issue reached the House of Lords the law might be clarified or changed (he nonetheless declined to grant permission to appeal, saying that was a matter for the House of Lords)[5]; he also questioned it in extra-judicial remarks in 2009[6].

In Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners[7], the House of Lords held that the loss suffered as a result of the late payment of money was recoverable at common law, subject to the ordinary rules of remoteness which apply to claims for damages; but the question of whether Sempra might permit a claim for late payment under a contract of insurance remains undecided.

Other possible routes to an award damages for late payment of insurance claims were also blocked: breach of the duty of utmost good faith by insurers does not sound in damages[8]; and an implied term that insurers handle claims with reasonable speed and efficiency was rejected by Mance J in Insurance Corpn of the Channel Islands Ltd v McHugh[9] as neither obvious nor necessary for business efficacy because any such term, if implied, would not apply only in respect of insurers’ conduct, but would have to be mutual, so that the reasonableness of the conduct of each party in the negotiation of the claim would have been subject to review.[10]

There is a statutory cause of action for late payment under a policy of insurance, but this is only of limited application. It arises under ICOBS 8.1.1[11] and ss 150 (former) and 138D (current) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000[12]. It is available where the insured is a ‘private person’. This means an individual – not only a consumer – and any person who is not an individual, unless he suffers the loss in question in the course of carrying on business of any kind[13]. The statutory cause of action is separate from the jurisdiction of the Financial Ombudsman Service (‘FOS’), and unlike the FOS, is not subject to a financial limit (the current FOS limit is £150,000). In practice, the statutory cause of action was little-used in insurance cases. It will not be abolished, but will largely cease to have practical importance in relation to late payment of insurance claims when the new right to damages is available.

Which contracts of insurance will be subject to the new implied term?

The Insurance Act 2015 was passed on 12 February 2015 and entered into force on 12 August 2016. This is not the relevant date for the new right to damages: the Enterprise Act 2016 was passed on 4 May 2016, and provides that the provisions in relation to damages for late payment enter into force one year later, on 4 May 2017.[14] The new right to damages for late payment of insurance claims applies only in relation to contracts of insurance entered into on or after 4 May 2017.[15] For policies entered into before that date, the old law continues to apply.

The new implied term

The implied term is introduced by s 13A(1) of the Insurance Act 2015. This provides:

It is an implied term of every contract of insurance that if the insured makes a claim under the contract, the insurer must pay any sums due in respect of the claim within a reasonable time.

What is ‘a reasonable time’?

It follows from the way that the implied term is expressed in s 13A(1) that the right to payment within a reasonable time arises only if the insured makes a claim. As one might expect, ‘[a] reasonable time includes a reasonable time to investigate and assess the claim[16], and what is reasonable will depend on ‘all the relevant circumstances’. The statute lists some ‘examples of things which may need to be taken into account’. These are:[17]

  • the type of insurance’ – for example, travel insurance, or business interruption insurance;
  • the size and complexity of the claim’ – for example, a straightforward claim for storm damage to roof of house, or a major fire involving an insured in financial difficulties and suspected of arson. The Law Commission suggest in their July 2014 Report[18] that a claim may be complicated by its location, and that if, for example, an insured peril occurs abroad, its investigation may be more difficult;
  • compliance with any relevant statutory or regulatory rules or guidance’. This might lead to allegations of breach of ICOBS even where the statutory cause of action under s 138D FSMA does not arise – for example, there is an obligation under ICOBS 8.1.1(2) to ‘provide reasonable guidance to help a policyholder make a claim and appropriate information on its progress’;
  • factors outside the insurer’s control’. An obvious example would be delay caused by the insured itself, perhaps in failing to provide information sought by the insurer. The Law Commission suggest[19] that this might extend to a situation where there were unusually high numbers of claims, for example due to widespread flooding, and insufficient numbers of loss adjusters or surveyors available in or around the affected area.

Delay in paying a disputed claim

The insurer does not breach the implied term ‘merely by failing to pay the claim (or the affected part of it) while the dispute is continuing’, but:

  • the burden is on the insurer[20] to show that there were ‘reasonable grounds for disputing the claim (whether as to the amount of any sum payable, or as to whether anything at all is payable)’;
  • if it can do so, then ‘the conduct of the insurer in handling the claim may be a relevant factor in deciding whether the term was breached and, if so, when.[21]

The Law Commission’s intention was to protect the ability of insurers to take a robust approach to decision-making where they suspect fraud or non-compliance with policy terms or where the precise circumstances of the loss were not clear, and to catch bad claims-handling practices, not prevent legitimate investigations by insurers.[22] They therefore suggest that ‘something more’ must be shown before an insurer which makes a reasonable but ultimately wrong refusal to pay a claim may be found to have breached the implied term, and give the examples of:

  • an insurer which conducts its investigation unreasonably slowly, or is slow to change its position when further information confirming the validity of the claim comes to light;[23] or
  • as examples of a deliberate or reckless breach, where claims handlers delay or reject a claim they know to be valid in order to secure a bonus payment or with a view to any internal budgets or quotas, or an insurer’s approach to a claim is blameworthy to the point of recklessness.[24]

Attempts to introduce into the House of Lords a right to allow insurers to rely on legal advice about a dispute in this context without waiving privilege in that advice were unsuccessful. This plainly has implications for the way in which insurers and their lawyers record legal advice and decisions made in the context of handling claims for policies issued/variations made from 4 May 2017 onwards. It would be prudent for the facts on which claims handling decisions are based, and the rationale for those decisions, to be recorded separately from the substance of legal advice, so that the former can be disclosed and relied on if a claim is made for late payment without having to choose between waiving privilege in legal advice, or being unable properly to defend a claim for late payment.

Delay in rejecting invalid claim does not give rise to right to damages

The implied term applies only in respect of ‘sums due’ in respect of a claim. This means that a delay in rejecting a claim which is later held to be invalid does not give rise to a right to damages for breach of the implied term.

The remedies for breach

As this is a term implied into the contract of insurance by statute, the usual remedies for breach of a contractual term are available, including damages and injunctive relief, and that the usual rules as to remoteness, foreseeability and mitigation of loss will apply to a claim for damages. The basic position in relation to foreseeability, in the words of the Law Commission, is that ‘Insurers are aware that policyholders rely on insurance monies in times of crisis’.[25]

Limitation period

In accordance with its usual approach, the Law Commission was proposing not to make any specific provision in relation to limitation but to allow limitation to follow the general law.[26] This would have been the six-year limited period for actions founded on simple contract.[27] However, a specific limitation period was later added by amendment in the House of Lords. This provides a one-year time limit for an action for breach of the implied term starting on the date on which the insurer has paid all the sums due in respect of the claim.[28] Two different limitation periods will therefore usually be in play if a claim is made both for an indemnity under a policy of insurance and for damages for late payment.

Contracting out of the implied term

The parties may not contract out of the statutory implied term in consumer insurance.[29] In non-consumer insurance[30], the parties may contract out of the implied term except where the breach is deliberate or reckless (‘did not care’).[31] Importantly, these restrictions do not apply to settlement agreements.[32]

This means that where contracting out is permitted (ie in non-consumer insurance unless the breach is deliberate or reckless), a contractual limitation on liability may be imposed, for example capping the amount or type of damages which may be recoverable.

Lawyers acting for insurers will need to consider whether they should advise insurers to enter into contractually binding settlement agreements which include an express term in relation to any entitlement to make a claim for late payment, or at least provide for full and final settlement of the insurer’s liability so as to start time running for any claim for late payment.

Where the beneficiary is not an insured

The obligation to pay claims within a reasonable term applies only to ‘the insured’ making ‘a claim under the contract’, and where a contract has been entered into, ‘the insured’ is defined as ‘the party to a contract of insurance who is the insured under the contract[33]. The right to damages for late payment therefore applies only in respect of claims made by a party to the contract, and unlike in respect of fraudulent claims and contracting out, no special provision is made for late payment of claims under group policies which provide cover for persons who are not parties to the contract.

Impact of the reform

The Law Commission thought that successful late payment claims would be relatively rare, and the impact on insurers correspondingly limited.[34] The reform will have a significant impact for policyholders like Mr Sprung for whom something goes badly wrong and who will no longer be left without a remedy. The Law Commission may be right that successful late payment claims prove to be relatively rare. The wider impact of the reform is however likely to be significant. There is potential for disruption if claims management companies move into this area, and the Association of British Insurers, which supported the reform, did so despite its concern that this might happen.[35] These fears may turn out to be unfounded.

But the right to damages is likely to have a significant impact on the way in which insurers investigate and make decisions about claims. The need to record the rationale for decisions will prompt consideration at an earlier stage as to whether liability should be admitted, or part of a claim paid, while investigations of quantum or other elements are ongoing. There may also be an increased level of formality in claims handling, with insurers writing to insureds setting out in more detail the facts on which they are basing a decision, and inviting the insured to correct those facts if they think they are wrong. Insurers may also make increased use of Part 36 offers, or at least put their position formally in writing, so as to avoid any dispute as to what they offered to pay the insured at what stage, and on what terms. Where insurers confirm liability at an earlier stage, while continuing to investigate quantum, insureds will be in a stronger bargaining position when it comes to agreeing the quantum of the claim.

Alison Padfield

  1. The Alexandros T [2012] EWCA Civ 1714, [2013] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 217, para 1.
  2. The Alexandros T [2013] UKSC 70, [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 223, para 6.
  3. [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 111, CA (decided in 1996 but not reported until three years later); see Evans LJ at 118.
  4. Pride Valley Foods Ltd v Independent Insurance Co Ltd [1999] Lloyd’s Rep IR 120.
  5. In Mandrake v Countrywide Assured Group plc [2005] EWCA Civ 840, at para 25.
  6. In ‘Should Sprung lose its spring?’, the Twelfth Annual Peter Taylor Memorial Address given to the Professional Negligence Bar Association on 21 April 2009. Richard Liddell of 4 New Square assisted Rix LJ in the preparation of this lecture.
  7. [2007] UKHL 34, [2008] 1 AC 561.
  8. See Banque Financière de la Cité SA v Westgate Insurance Co Ltd [1991] 2 AC 249, HL; Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd, The ‘Star Sea’ [2001] UKHL 1, [2003] AC 469. The Law Commission considered introducing a right to damages for breach of the duty of good faith as an alternative to the new implied term, but was persuaded by insurers that this might lead to the development of US-style bad faith claims, and that this would be undesirable: see the Report, paras 26.60-26.63.
  9. [1997] LRLR 94, 136-137.
  10. It would also have been contrary to an express term in the relevant policies.
  11. ICOBS 8.1.1 imposes obligations on insurers in relation to claims handling, including an obligation to handle claims promptly and fairly.
  12. Section 138D (prior to 1 April 2013, s 150) of the Financial Service and Markets Act 2000 provides that contravention by an authorised person of a rule made by the Financial Conduct Authority (‘FCA’) is actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty. This ‘can perhaps be described as an express cause of action for breach of statutory duty’: Green v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1197, para 28 (Tomlinson LJ). The rules made by the FCA include ICOBS.
  13. See s 138D(6) of FSMA and Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Rights of Action) Regulations 2001, reg 3(1). This exception has been construed widely: see Titan Steel Wheels Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2010] EWHC 211 (Comm), [2010] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 92, paras 48 and 70 (David Steel J); applied in a series of subsequent cases including Thornbridge Ltd v Barclays Bank plc [2015] EWHC 3430 (QB) (appeal to Court of Appeal pending).
  14. See s 44(3) of the Enterprise Act 2016.
  15. See s 28(2) of the Enterprise Act 2016, which inserts a new s 22(3A) into the Insurance Act 2015.
  16. Section 13A(2) of the Insurance Act 2015.
  17. See s 13A(3) of the Insurance Act 2015.
  18. At para 28.32. The wording of s 13A is identical to the wording of clause 14 in the Law Commission’s draft Bill and therefore the subject of its July 2014 Report.
  19. See the July 2014 Report at para 28.38.
  20. If the insurer shows that there were reasonable grounds…’: s 13A(4).
  21. Section 13A(4), Insurance Act 2015.
  22. Report, para 27.6.
  23. See the July 2014 Report, paras 28.50-28.52.
  24. See the July 2014 Report, para 28.98.
  25. Report, para 26.39.
  26. Report, para 28.71-28.76.
  27. Section 5, Limitation Act 1980.
  28. Section 5A(1), Insurance Act 2015.
  29. Section 16A(1), Insurance Act 2015. For the purposes of the Insurance Act 2015, ‘consumer insurance contract’ means ‘a contract of insurance between (a) an individual who enters into the contract wholly or mainly for purposes unrelated to the individual’s trade, business or profession, and (b) a person who carries on the business of insurance and who becomes a party to the contract by way of that business…’: see s 1 of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 and s 1 of the Insurance Act 2015.
  30. A contract of non-consumer insurance means ‘a contract of insurance that is not a consumer insurance contract’: see s 1 of the Insurance Act 2015.
  31. Section 16A(2) and (3), Insurance Act 2015.
  32. Section 16A(6), Insurance Act 2015.
  33. Section 1, Insurance Act 2015.
  34. Report, para 26.33.
  35. See the transcript of the evidence of Ms Philippa Handyside of the Association of British Insurers to the House of Lords Special Public Bill Committee on 3 December 2014, at page 20.

Be prepared? – the perils of witness training

In two recent cases, one in the Commercial Court and one in the Technology and Construction Court, judges have deprecated the use of witness preparation even where the training falls short of witness coaching.

Witness coaching is prohibited by the Bar Code of Conduct[1], which states that ‘Your duty to act with honesty and integrity under CD3 includes the following requirements… you must not rehearse, practise with or coach a witness in respect of their evidence[2]. CD3, one of the Core Duties imposed on barristers by the Code of Conduct, is that: ‘You must act with honesty and integrity’.

Coaching’ is not defined in the Code of Conduct, but the Bar Council practice note on Witness Preparation[3] says:

In any discussions with witnesses regarding the process of giving evidence, great care must be taken not to do or say anything which could be interpreted as suggesting what the witness should say, or how he or she should express himself or herself in the witness box: that would be coaching.[4]

This Bar Council practice note draws heavily on the 2005 decision of the Court of Appeal in R v Momodou[5] and states[6] that there is currently no authority on these matters in relation to civil proceedings, and that until such authority emerges, it would be prudent to proceed on the basis that the general principles set out in R v Momodou also apply to civil proceedings.

In R v Momodou, the Court of Appeal made clear that discussion with a witness of his or her proposed or intended evidence in a criminal case was not permitted:

Training or coaching for witnesses in criminal proceedings (whether for prosecution or defence) is not permitted. This is the logical consequence of [the] well-known principle that discussions between witnesses should not take place, and that the statements and proofs of one witness should not be disclosed to any other witness. … The witness should give his or her own evidence, so far as practicable uninfluenced by what anyone else has said, whether in formal discussions or informal conversations. The rule reduces, indeed hopefully avoids any possibility, that one witness may tailor his evidence in the light of what anyone else said, and equally, avoids any unfounded perception that he may have done so. These risks are inherent in witness training.[7]

The Court of Appeal said that there was a ‘dramatic distinction’ between witness training or coaching, and witness familiarisation.[8] Witness familiarisation is:

pre-trial arrangements to familiarise witness with the layout of the court, the likely sequence of events when the witness is giving evidence, and a balanced appraisal of the different responsibilities of the various participants’,[9]

and the Court of Appeal added that such arrangements would usually be in the form of a pre-trial visit to the court, and were generally to be welcomed, but that out of court familiarisation techniques were also permissible. It emphasised, however that ‘None of this … involves discussions about proposed or intended evidence’.[10]

The Court of Appeal also addressed specifically the position of expert witnesses, saying that training of such witnesses in ‘the technique of giving comprehensive evidence of a specialist kind to a jury, both during evidence-in-chief and in cross-examination, and, another example, developing the ability to resist the inevitable pressure of going further in evidence than matters covered by the witnesses’ specific expertise’. As with witnesses of fact, ‘The critical feature of training of this kind is that it should not be arranged in the context of nor related to any forthcoming trial, and it can therefore have no impact whatever on it.’[11]

Guidance in the Bar Code of Conduct in a related but different context (the duty not to mislead the court) refers to the preparation of witness statements, and states that:

you are entitled and it may often be appropriate to draw to the witness’s attention other evidence which appears to conflict with what the witness is saying and you are entitled to indicate that a court may find a particular piece of evidence difficult to accept. But if the witness maintains that the evidence is true, it should be recorded in the witness statement and you will not be misleading the court if you call the witness to confirm their witness statement.’[12]

The reference to witness statements makes clear that this guidance relates to civil rather than criminal proceedings. It is not addressed in the Bar Council practice note, which as we have seen indicates that, in the absence of authority, it would be prudent to proceed on the basis that the general principles set out in R v Momodou also apply to civil proceedings. There is therefore an inconsistency between the Code of Conduct guidance and the clear statement in R v Momidou that ‘the statements and proofs of one witness should not be disclosed to any other witness’. This inconsistency is not explicable by the difference in procedure, as witness statements in civil proceedings simply take the place of oral evidence in chief: the process of taking the statement is merely the mechanism by which the evidence is put before the court, and there is no difference of principle. The extent to which the practice referred to in the Code of Conduct guidance will be regarded by the civil courts as permissible has yet to be determined, but there is no doubt that, given the clear statement in the guidance, it is acceptable from a regulatory perspective as far as barristers are concerned.

This is the legal and regulatory background against which judges in two recent commercial cases have deprecated the use of witness preparation even where such training falls short of witness coaching. Flaux J said in the Commercial Court in Republic of Djibouti v Boreh:[13]

The second reason for approaching the evidence of the Djibouti witnesses with considerable caution is that it was quite obvious that they had had witness training and been carefully prepared for giving evidence. Mr Douale admitted as much.[14]


Whilst I am not suggesting that witness training in itself is improper, (provided that it does not amount to coaching of a witness as to what to say, which would be improper) it is to be discouraged, since, as this case demonstrates, it tends to reflect badly on the witness who, perhaps through no fault of his or her own, may appear evasive because he or she has been “trained” to give evidence in a particular way.’[15]

Last month, in Harlequin Property (SVG) Ltd v Wilkins Kennedy[16] in the Technology and Construction Court, Coulson J referred to Flaux J’s remarks with approval:

I was unsurprised to learn that Mr MacDonald had had witness training. For the same reasons outlined by Flaux J (as he then was) in Republic of Djibouti v Boreh … I consider it to be a practice “to be discouraged since…it tends to reflect badly on the witnesses who…may appear evasive.” In my view, the training he received exacerbated Mr MacDonald’s natural tendency to avoid answering any difficult question.’[17]

We can expect commercial judges to continue to criticise attempts to refine the evidence which is to be given by witnesses in court. Judges want, so far as possible, to hear a witness’s evidence in his or her own words. The 2007 Report of the Commercial Court Long Trials Working Party, in which two Commercial Court judges[18] were heavily involved, said:

Inevitably, in nearly all cases the witness statements are drafted by the lawyers, although based on interviews with the witness. But this process often leads to the statements being in lawyers’ language rather than the words of the witness. Also, all too frequently the statements spend far too long summarising documents that a party wishes to have in evidence and arguing the case. Not enough time is spent recording the witness’s actual memories of relevant events.[19]

The Admiralty and Commercial Courts guide[20] similarly emphasises that the function of a witness statement is to set out in writing the evidence in chief of the witness and that as far as possible, therefore, the statement should be in the witness’s own words; that it should not contain lengthy quotations from documents; and that it should not engage in argument.[21]

Alison Padfield

  1. The Code of Conduct is in Part 2 of the BSB Handbook (2nd Edition, April 2015, updated December 2016).
  2. Rule rC9.4. There is no specific prohibition in the solicitors’ Code of Conduct (Version 18, published 1 November 2016): see Chapter 5, ‘Your client and the court’, including IB(5.9) to IB(5.11); and see this interesting article by Professor Richard Moorhead in the Guardian in relation to David Cameron’s preparation for his appearance before the Leveson inquiry in 2012.
  3. Issued October 2005; last reviewed May 2016. Practice notes issued by the Bar Council do not constitute ‘guidance’ for the purposes of the Code of Conduct: see further paragraph I6.4 of the Handbook (pages 11-12 of the pdf version).
  4. At para 17.2.
  5. [2005] EWCA Crim 177.
  6. At para 16.
  7. At para 61.
  8. At para 61.
  9. At para 62.
  10. At para 62.
  11. At para 62.
  12. Code of Conduct, para gC7.
  13. [2016] EWHC 405 (Comm).
  14. At para 65.
  15. At para 67.
  16. [2016] EWHC 3188 (TCC).
  17. At para 18.
  18. Aikens and Gloster JJ; Aikens J chaired the working party which prepared the report; I was its secretary.
  19. At para 69.
  20. Last updated 18 March 2016.
  21. See paras H1.1(i), (iii) and (v)),

Won’t you stay? – prejudice arising from concurrent civil and criminal proceedings

Civil courts are sometimes asked to stay their proceedings in order to avoid prejudice to a party who is facing concurrent criminal proceedings, for example where there is a factual overlap concerning allegations of dishonesty or fraud. The courts are slow to grant a stay, and will always try to resolve the issue by case management measures short of a stay; but they will stay proceedings, in the exercise of their discretion, in an appropriate case.

The starting point is s 49(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981, which provides:

Nothing in this Act shall affect the power of the Court of Appeal or the High Court to stay any proceedings before it, where it thinks fit to do so, either of its own motion or on the application of any person, whether or not a party to the proceedings.

CPR 3.1(2)(f) provides that the court may, unless the rules provide otherwise, ‘stay the whole or part of any proceedings or judgment either generally or until a specified date or event’.

The party seeking to stay civil proceedings where there are concurrent criminal proceedings is typically the defendant in both sets of proceedings, although as two recent decisions illustrate, this is not always the case.

In Bittar v The Financial Conduct Authority[1], the Financial Conduct Authority, supported by the Serious Fraud Office (‘SFO’), which was the prosecutor in concurrent criminal proceedings, sought a stay of its reference to the Upper Tax Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chambers – Financial Services) pending resolution of the SFO’s criminal proceedings in respect of a charge of conspiracy to defraud. The SFO’s objections included that the defendant might seek to introduce evidence given or findings made by the Tribunal into the criminal proceedings, and said that it, too, was entitled to a fair trial.

The Tribunal said that there was a strong presumption against a stay and that it was a power which had to be exercised with great care and ‘only where there is a test of real risk of serious prejudice which may lead to injustice[2]. It declined to order a stay, partly on the grounds that any prejudice could be mitigated by case management measures including, if necessary, deferring the hearing of the reference itself until after the criminal proceedings had concluded.[3] In the meantime, the Tribunal gave directions for the parties to prepare for the hearing, and said that the matter should be kept under review.[4]

In Polonskiy v Alexander Dobrovinsky & Partners LLP,[5] the claimant asked the High Court to stay civil proceedings which he himself had brought, and to stay a counterclaim brought by a defendant, pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against him in Russia. He relied on an alleged risk of injustice to him not in the criminal proceedings, but in the civil proceedings. This was an unpromising start and, although the court considered the matter in detail (in a judgment which was 153 paragraphs long), it ultimately declined to grant a stay. The defendant in the civil proceedings tried unsuccessfully to persuade the court that the test to be applied was that a stay should be granted only in ‘rare and compelling circumstances’,[6] which is the test usually applied where the court is being asked to stay civil proceedings in favour of other civil (court or arbitral) proceedings.[7] The court rejected this submission and instead applied the principle, derived from earlier decisions of the Court of Appeal, that the court has a discretion to stay civil proceedings until related criminal proceedings have been determined, but that this is ‘a power which has to be exercised with great care and only where there is a real risk of serious prejudice which may lead to injustice’.[8]

Alison Padfield

  1. [2016] UKUT 265 (TCC).
  2. At para 16.
  3. See para 17.
  4. See para 17.
  5. [2016] EWHC 1114 (Ch) (Mr G Moss QC, sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court).
  6. See paras 135-139.
  7. See eg Reichhold Norway ASA v Goldman Sachs International (a firm) [2000] 1 WLR 173, CA, 186 (Bingham LJ).
  8. See paras 133 and 139; the quotation is from R v Panel on Takeovers and Mergers, ex p Fayed [1992] BCC 524, CA, 531 (Neill LJ); approved: Attorney-General of Zambia v Meer Care & Desai (a firm) [2006] EWCA Civ 390, para 36 (Sir Anthony Clarke MR).