Korea National Insurance Corporation v Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality AG

Korea National Insurance Corporation v Allianz Global Corporate & Speciality AG

The defence alleging a binding compromise agreement and fraud had no real prospect of success because there was no sufficient evidence of a binding agreement, no written record, and the correspondence was inconsistent with a concluded settlement. The court must judge objectively and cannot speculate about evidence not adduced. Summary judgment and striking out were appropriate.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Korea National Insurance Corporation; Defendant/appellant: Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Order Striking Out Part of Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Summary Judgment, Compromise and Settlement, Fraud as a Defence, Reinsurance
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Summary Judgment Compromise and Settlement Fraud as a Defence Reinsurance

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Korea National Insurance Corporation

Claimant/respondent

Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty AG

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment and Order Striking Out Part of Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Korean judgment was obtained by fraud due to alleged non-disclosure of a compromise agreement
  2. 2 Whether there was a legally binding compromise agreement discharging the reinsurers' obligations
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the fraud defence

Ratio Decidendi

The defence alleging a binding compromise agreement and fraud had no real prospect of success because there was no sufficient evidence of a binding agreement, no written record, and the correspondence was inconsistent with a concluded settlement. The court must judge objectively and cannot speculate about evidence not adduced. Summary judgment and striking out were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for KNIC on the fraud/compromise defence is upheld.
  • Relevant parts of Allianz's defence and counterclaim are struck out.