Court refuses application for pre-action disclosure of insurance policy

The High Court has refused an application for pre-action disclosure of the public liability insurance policy of a company that, if litigation were pursued against it, was likely to become insolvent.

Background

There have been a number of cases in recent years in which a party has sought to utilise the provisions of the CPR in order to obtain information on the opposing party's insurance arrangements, rather than waiting for that party to go insolvent in order to use the procedures provided by the Third Parties Rights Act 1930 or 2010. The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) looks at this again in light of the discretion which Judges have under CPR31.16 for applications for pre-action disclosure and attempts to shut the door on such actions.

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

Whether third party claimant entitled to pre-action disclosure of currently solvent insured's insurance policy

This case arose from an underlying claim by a company called Mploy against Denso, which resulted in an adverse costs order against Mploy.

To start, let me introduce some familiar characters. First, an impecunious claimant who has the benefit of after the event (ATE) insurance, but the disadvantage of an incompetent solicitor. Second, a successful defendant with the benefit of a costs order and a final costs certificate, but the disadvantage of a slippery ATE insurer who has avoided the claimant’s ATE policy because of failures by the aforesaid incompetent solicitor. Different ways around this problem have been tried, and generally failed.

In an important judgment, the High Court has tackled the question of whether an impecunious claimant can defeat a defendant’s application for security for costs on the basis that it has ATE insurance in place.

Welcome to the latest edition of DLA Piper’s monthly newsletter – Pensions Round-Up – in which we provide an overview of developments in pension legislation, case law and regulatory guidance. In this edition we look at key developments from October 2016 including the following. ■ The Pensions Regulator: the publication of reports which look at cases concerning the power to declare scheme amendments void, failures to complete the scheme return, and the potential use of the Regulator’s anti-avoidance powers.

After much delay, the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (the 2010 Act) came into force on 1 August 2016. The 2010 Act aims to assist parties wishing to claim against insolvent companies and individuals who supply professional services by allowing them to claim directly against their insurers.

When considering whether or not to bring a legal action, it is important to establish if it is competent and commercially worthwhile to do so. The ability to bring, or continue with, legal proceedings against a company can be restricted if that company enters into a formal insolvency process. The position of creditors may be improved now that the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 has at last been brought into force.