Greene Wood & McLean LLP v Templeton Insurance Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 65 (12 February 2009)

Greene Wood & McLean LLP v Templeton Insurance Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 65 (12 February 2009)

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether a term should be implied into the agreement between GWM and Templeton obliging Templeton to meet valid claims under the ATE policy, justifying permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the contract claim. The claim for contribution is in respect of a contract governed by English law and the damage for which GWM and Templeton are liable is the same, namely the miners' liability for costs and disbursements. Both appeals are allowed in part: GWM's contract claim is reinstated and Templeton's appeal on the contribution claim is dismissed.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 65
Parties
Respondent/appellant: Greene Wood & McLean LLP; Appellant/respondent: Templeton Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Cross Appeals Regarding Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and Strike Out of Claims
Outcome
GWM's appeal allowed (contract claim reinstated); Templeton's appeal dismissed (contribution claim proceeds)
Legal Topics
After the Event (ate) Insurance, Group Litigation Orders (glo), Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Jurisdiction to Serve Out of the Jurisdiction, Implied Contractual Terms
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Contract Law After the Event (ate) Insurance Group Litigation Orders (glo) Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Jurisdiction to Serve Out of the Jurisdiction Implied Contractual Terms

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Greene Wood & McLean LLP

Respondent/appellant

Templeton Insurance Limited

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Cross Appeals Regarding Permission to Serve Out of Jurisdiction and Strike Out of Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether GWM had a direct contractual claim against Templeton under English law for ATE insurance coverage
  2. 2 Whether GWM could claim contribution from Templeton under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 for the same damage
  3. 3 Whether the claim for contribution is 'in respect of a contract' for CPR 6.20(5)(c) purposes

Ratio Decidendi

There is a serious issue to be tried as to whether a term should be implied into the agreement between GWM and Templeton obliging Templeton to meet valid claims under the ATE policy, justifying permission to serve out of the jurisdiction on the contract claim. The claim for contribution is in respect of a contract governed by English law and the damage for which GWM and Templeton are liable is the same, namely the miners' liability for costs and disbursements. Both appeals are allowed in part: GWM's contract claim is reinstated and Templeton's appeal on the contribution claim is dismissed.

Court Disposition

GWM's appeal allowed (contract claim reinstated); Templeton's appeal dismissed (contribution claim proceeds)

Orders

  • Permission to serve Templeton out of the jurisdiction on both the contract and contribution claims is granted
  • Strike-out of GWM's contract claim is reversed