Society of Lloyd's v Laws & Ors [2003] EWHC 873 (Comm) (24 April 2003)

Society of Lloyd's v Laws & Ors [2003] EWHC 873 (Comm) (24 April 2003)

The court held that the claims for negligent or statutory misrepresentation are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, that Lloyd's owes no duty of care or statutory duty to Names in respect of disclosure, advice, or regulation, and that section 14(3) of the Lloyd's Act 1982 provides Lloyd's with immunity from such claims arising after its commencement. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not override this statutory immunity. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to pleadings have no real prospect of success and permission to amend is refused.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 873 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: The Society of Lloyd's; Defendants: Eric Nigel Laws & others; Defendants: UNO Names; Defendant: Mrs Mackenzie Smith; Defendant: Mrs Reisz; Defendant: Mr Burns; Defendant: Mr Butler; Defendant: Mr Wilson; Defendant: Mrs Ann Strong; Defendant: Mr Doll-Steinberg for Mrs Doll-Steinberg
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2003
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Proceedings (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings After Dismissal of Claims/counterclaims and Prior Appellate Proceedings
Outcome
Permission to amend pleadings refused; claims and counterclaims remain dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Negligence, Limitation of Actions, Statutory Immunity, Human Rights Act, Amendment of Pleadings, Fraud, Regulatory Duties
Commercial Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Misrepresentation Negligence Limitation of Actions Statutory Immunity +4 more

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Society of Lloyd's

Claimant

Eric Nigel Laws & others

Defendants

UNO Names

Defendants

Mrs Mackenzie Smith

Defendant

Mrs Reisz

Defendant

Mr Burns

Defendant

Mr Butler

Defendant

Mr Wilson

Defendant

Mrs Ann Strong

Defendant

Mr Doll-Steinberg for Mrs Doll-Steinberg

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Proceedings (high Court, Queen's Bench Division) / Application for Permission to Amend Pleadings After Dismissal of Claims/counterclaims and Prior Appellate Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Names' claims for negligent or statutory misrepresentation against Lloyd's are time-barred
  2. 2 Whether Lloyd's owes a duty of care or statutory duty to Names regarding disclosure, advice, or regulation
  3. 3 Whether section 14(3) of the Lloyd's Act 1982 bars claims for negligent or statutory misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claims for negligent or statutory misrepresentation are time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, that Lloyd's owes no duty of care or statutory duty to Names in respect of disclosure, advice, or regulation, and that section 14(3) of the Lloyd's Act 1982 provides Lloyd's with immunity from such claims arising after its commencement. The Human Rights Act 1998 does not override this statutory immunity. Accordingly, the proposed amendments to pleadings have no real prospect of success and permission to amend is refused.

Court Disposition

Permission to amend pleadings refused; claims and counterclaims remain dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings refused.
  • Claims and counterclaims dismissed.