UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER

The Arbitrator was not obviously or seriously wrong: his construction of the slip phrase was proper having regard to the words and market practice; that construction supported rectification of condition 8; the findings that Hyundai did not affirm or abandon its rights were factual and not open to appellate re-litigation; and condition 10 was properly construed as not encompassing a claim for premium refund, therefore leave to appeal was refused.

Citation
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD v. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Applicant (1st Respondent): UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD; 2nd Applicant (2nd Respondent): THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD; Respondent (claimant): HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 March 2005
Case Number
HCCT2/2005
Procedural Posture
Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; Applicants' application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Policy Construction, Rectification, Premium Adjustment, Affirmation by Conduct, Abandonment of Claim, Leave to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Insurance Law Arbitration Contract Law Construction Law Policy Construction Rectification Premium Adjustment Affirmation by Conduct +2 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD

1st Applicant (1st Respondent)

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD

2nd Applicant (2nd Respondent)

HYUNDAI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD

Respondent (claimant)

Procedural Posture

Construction and Arbitration Proceedings / Application for Leave to Appeal (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Construction of phrase 'Premium adjustable at the Certified Total Contract Value' in the slip
  2. 2 Whether condition 8 should be rectified to reflect prior agreement
  3. 3 Whether Hyundai affirmed the unrectified policy during renewal negotiations

Ratio Decidendi

The Arbitrator was not obviously or seriously wrong: his construction of the slip phrase was proper having regard to the words and market practice; that construction supported rectification of condition 8; the findings that Hyundai did not affirm or abandon its rights were factual and not open to appellate re-litigation; and condition 10 was properly construed as not encompassing a claim for premium refund, therefore leave to appeal was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; Applicants' application dismissed.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • Applicants' application dismissed.