Manifest Shipping Company Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Company Ltd (Star Sea)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Leggatt,Henry,Waller L JJ |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 1997 |
| Date | 20 December 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Leggatt, Lord Justice Henry and Lord Justice Waller
Insurance - culpable non-disclosure- underwriters' liability
While a fraudulent claim by an assured under a policy of insurance discharged underwriters from all liability under the policy, and not merely in respect of that claim, there was no warrant for widening the duty not to make a fraudulent claim so as to embrace culpable or misleading non-disclosure.
The Court of Appeal so held in a reserved judgment when, inter alia, dismissing the appeal of Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and La Reunion Europeene, issuers of hull and machinery insurance policies, against the dismissal by Mr Justice Tuckey ([1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep 651) of the claim of Manifest Shipping Co Ltd for a constructive total loss by fire of their ship, the Star Sea, under the policies but, inter alia, allowing their claim for a partial loss of US$1.7 million plus interest.
Mr Gordon Pollock, QC and Mr David Foxton for the underwriters; Mr Richard Aikens, QC, Mr Stephen Hofmeyr and Miss Rebecca Sabben-Clare for the plaintiffs.
LORD JUSTICE LEGGATT, giving the judgment of the court, said that the ship, a refrigerated vessel owned by the plaintiffs and carrying a cargo of bananas and other produce, was lost following a fire in May 1990. It was one of a fleet of 33 ships owned by the Kollakis family.
Two other ships in the fleet were lost by fire early in 1989 when the Star Sea was laid up. Her engine room and cargo holds were protected by a
carbon dioxide extinguishing system which did not work unless the space into which the gas was discharged had been effectively sealed.
The judge had found, inter alia, that, following two reports by a fire expert on one of the other ships lost, the owners' response in respect of the Star Sea had been completely inadequate and there were other matters which rendered the ship unseaworthy. He also found that, but for the master's incompetence, the system would have extinguished the fire and prevented much of the loss.
Privilege would have been claimed for the two fire damage reports; in fact, the second report was misplaced and undiscovered until the day after trial began. It was inevitable that privilege would have to be waived before the plaintiffs' witnesses, who referred to the reports in written statements, gave evidence, and the reports disclosed.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K/s Merc-scandia Xxxxii v Certain Lloyd's Underwriters and Others
...been concluded has never been authoritatively determined, but it has recently been considered by the House of Lords in Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v. Uni-Polaris Insurance Co ( The Star Sea) [2001] 2 W.L.R. 170 in the context of a hull and machinery policy where the allegation was one of culp......
-
Royal Boskalis Westminster N.v v Mountain
... ... the light of the Court's decision in ( Manifest Shipping -v- Uni-Polaris Shipping unreported ... shipowner had lent £10,000 to a salvage company and the owner's ship being at risk of loss from ... ...
-
Brimex Ltd v Begum Ltd
...not to inquire into the existence of a fact is in many cases treated as equivalent to knowledge of that fact: see Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd [2003] 1 AC 469. It is not the same as negligence or even gross negligence: in British Industrial Plastics Ltd v Ferguson......
-
Avocet Industrial Estates LLP v Merol Ltd and Another
...the landlord a duty to speak would be the degree of suspicion which amounts to blind-eye knowledge, as to which see: Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd [2003] 1 AC 469, in particular at [112] – [116]. Accordingly, even if an allegation of estoppel by acquiescence had be......
-
One-Off Pilot Error Did Not Render Port Unsafe
...and that the port was unsafe as a result. Owners will often seek to rely on the first part of Leggatt LJ's dictum in The Star Sea [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep 360, that it may be possible to infer incompetence from a single The present decision, however, demonstrates the importance of the second pa......
-
Post‐Contractual Good Faith – Change in Judicial Attitude?
...advocated by Clarke, n 4 above, atpara 27-1A2, as endorsed by, for instance, The Royal Boskolis [1997] LRLR 523, 705; The StarSea [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 360 (CA); and The Mercandian Continent, n 6 above, 574–575.16 Avoidance has been confirmed to be the exclusive remedy in pre-contractual brea......
-
THE MARINE INSURANCE ACT 1906: REFLECTIONS ON A CENTENARY
...48 Manifest Shipping & Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd (The Star Sea) [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 651, reversed on other grounds: see [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 360 (CA), [2003] 1 AC 469 (HL). 49 [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 651 at 663, 664. 50 Id, at 663. 51 2003 Version available at (accessed 22 Novembe......
-
The duty of utmost good faith in insurance law: where is it in the 21st century? The historical background of good and bad faith continues to develop in English law, especially in two recent maritime cases.
...O'Neill & Woloniecki, The Law of Reinsurance 214-43 (1st ed.) and 36-37 (first supp). (10.) [1995] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 651. (11.) [1997] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 360. (12.) [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep. (13.) Banque Keyser Ullmann SA v. Skandia (UK) Ins. Co. Ltd., [1990] 1 Q.B. 665. (14.) [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep......