Settlement Agreement in UK Law

That is to adopt too dogmatic an approach to what should in my opinion be a broad, merits-based judgment which takes account of the public and private interests involved and also takes account of all the facts of the case, focusing attention on the crucial question whether, in all the circumstances, a party is misusing or abusing the process of the court by seeking to raise before it the issue which could have been raised before.

It may be said that there are other causes of action in the English proceedings which are not exactly mirror images of the allegations in the Greek proceedings but to the extent that they are not, they are essentially the same in the sense that the key assertion in Greece is that there are non-contractual claims and the key assertion in England is that those non-contractual claims have been compromised by the settlement agreements.

It cannot simply rely on the fact of the settlement to demonstrate either liability or that the amount of the settlement was reasonable. In order to show the settlement was reasonable, the insured must show that the amount of damage for which it would have been liable is at least as much as the amount paid under the settlement.

The most important, if obvious, point is that an insurer always has the right to challenge whether the insured's right to indemnity under the policy has been established. Therefore it has the right to challenge whether the insured was, in fact and law, liable to the third party. It has the right to challenge the quantum of the liability.

He may examine the statement of claim in the first action and the terms of the settlement in order to identify the subject matter of the claim and the extent to which the causes of action which were comprised in it have been included within the settlement. The intention of the parties is to be found in the words of the settlement. The question is one as to the objective meaning of the words used by them in the context of what has been claimed.

The wording of a general release and the context in which it was given commonly make plain that the parties intended that the release should not be confined to known claims. The mere fact that the parties were unaware of the particular claim is not a reason for excluding it from the scope of the release. The risk that further claims might later emerge was a risk the person giving the release took upon himself.

Not only would the plaintiffs be required to re-litigate matters which have twice been extensively investigated and decided in their favour in the natural forum, but it would run the risk of inconsistent verdicts being reached, not only as between the English and Irish courts, but as between the defendants themselves. Public policy requires that there should be an end of litigation, and that a litigant should not be vexed more than once in the same cause.