Current Law Cases
Scope |
Judicial review; Committee of Lloyd's
decision; locus standi of Lloyd's names; whether public law matter subject to
review; whether decision susceptible to judicial review |
Case |
R. v Lloyd's of London Ex p. Briggs |
Court |
(QBD) Queens Bench Division |
Jurisdiction |
UKEW |
Judgment |
|
Judges |
. |
Legislation |
|
Reported |
1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 176 |
Reference |
Times, July 30, 1992; Independent, September
16, 1992; Financial Times, July 29, 1992 |
Abstract |
As part of large-scale litigation arising from
losses by Lloyd's names on syndicates managed by GW, the names were given
leave to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Committee of Lloyd's.
In parallel private law proceedings, Saville J. had refused the names an
interlocutory injunction to prevent cash calls being made against them
(Boobyer v. Holman (David) & Co and the Society of Lloyd's (No.2) [1993]
C.L.Y. 3352). Three of the applicants in the present case were plaintiffs in
the Boobyer case. Held, setting aside leave for judicial review, that (1) the
applications to quash cash call statements and auditor's reports issued more
than three months before the application were out of time; (2) the applicants
had failed to make full disclosure about the overlap between the proceedings;
(3) the applicants had not demonstrated any public law grounds on which
Lloyd's had failed in any alleged duty towards the names; (4) there was no
consistent past practice about consultation with names about the making of
cash calls as would in public law have given them locus standi to apply for
judicial review on the ground that the practice was not observed on this
occasion; (5) even if the Corporation of Lloyd's does perform public
functions, e.g. protecting policy holders, it was not a public law body
regulating the insurance market, but derived powers from a private Act
extending to those who had committed themselves to operating in the market by
virtue of a uniform contract; and (6) the rights relied on in these proceedings
related exclusively to the contract governing the relationship between names
and their members' agents and managing agents, which were not matters of
public law, but the private law of contract. |
Subject |
Insurance |
Keywords |
Lloyds, Judicial review, Locus standi |
Counsel |
|
Solicitors |
|
Cases cited |
Boobyer v. Holman (David) & Co and the
(No.2) [1993] C.L.Y. 3352 Society of Lloyd's |