Stuart John Gentry (Claimant/Appellant) v Lee Miller (1st Defendant) Uk Insurance Ltd (2nd Defendant/Respondent)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Vos,Lord Justice Beatson,Lord Justice Lewison |
| Judgment Date | 09 March 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 141 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2015/0645 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 09 March 2016 |
Lord Justice Lewison
Lord Justice Beatson
and
Lord Justice Vos
Case No: B2/2015/0645
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LIVERPOOL
MR RECORDER GREGORY
CASE No: 3YM1960
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Mr Andrew Hogan (instructed by Armstrongs Solicitors Limited) for the Appellant
Mr P N Hinchliffe QC (instructed by Keoghs LLP) for the Respondent
Hearing date: 25 th February 2016
Introduction
This appeal raises the question of how the court should approach the grant of relief from sanctions in a case where the defaulting party has delayed in applying for relief but is able to point to evidence that enables it to allege that the claim is a fraudulent one. The claimant and appellant, Mr Stuart Gentry, contends that the full rigours of the tests in Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 795 (" Mitchell"), as explained in Denton v. TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1298, [2014] 1 WLR 3926 (" Denton"), should be applied so as to refuse to set aside a default judgment, whilst the 2 nd defendant and respondent insurance company, UK Insurance Limited (the "insurer") maintains that the district judge and the Recorder on appeal were right to set aside the default judgment notwithstanding the delay in making the application.
The question that we have to determine is necessarily somewhat fact-intensive, so I shall start by summarising as briefly as possible the chronological events that have given rise to the appeal.
The factual background
On 17 th March 2013, the appellant claimed that he was involved in a night-time road accident with the 1 st defendant, Mr Lee Miller ("Mr Miller"), in circumstances in which it was possible for the appellant to allege that Mr Miller had caused the accident, and that he (the appellant) had sustained substantial losses including personal injuries, the write-off of his Range Rover car and recovery, storage and credit hire charges.
The appellant quickly submitted a claims notification form through the Ministry of Justice portal utilising the then current Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents, which was then available for claims valued by the claimant at under £10,000. Equally quickly, on 2 nd April 2013, the insurer admitted liability and paid the appellant's stage 1 costs, but the insurer's claims department, operating under the trade name "Privilege Insurance Claims", did not follow up that admission with a substantive settlement offer. On 8 th April 2013, the appellant's solicitors sent the insurer a copy of its engineer's report asking for a cheque for the pre-accident value of the appellant's car, said to be £16,000. The letter asked the insurer to note that "[o]ur client is hiring a replacement vehicle under a credit hire facility and will continue to do so until receipt of your cheque". The appellant's solicitors chased the insurer's response in no fewer than 5 letters dated 17 th April, 2 nd May, 17 th May, 3 rd and 5 th June 2013 asking on each occasion for £16,000 immediately in respect of the vehicle, and reiterating the warning about continuing hire charges. They followed up with a telephone call to the insurer on 28 th May 2013, the response to which was that the insurer was not taking calls that day and was only dealing with their policyholders. On 14 th June 2013, the appellant's solicitors wrote again to the insurer saying "[w]e can only assume that this is a complex matter and advise that our file is now being transferred to our pre-litigation department to bring proceedings". The appellant sent the insurer notice of intention to issue proceedings on 19 th June 2013. On 2 nd July 2013, the insurer wrote to the appellant's solicitors asking why they were issuing proceedings "as we are still awaiting the Personal Injury claim from yourselves". The response was to send the insurer a medical report on 15 th July 2013, repeating the previous warnings and asking for an interim payment by return. The proceedings against Mr Miller alone were issued on 3 rd July 2013 and served by post on him on 3 rd July 2013. The appellant entered a judgment in default of acknowledgement of service against Mr Miller on 8 th August 2013. It will be observed that throughout this period, the insurer neither instructed solicitors nor took any steps to protect its position, despite the fact that it had admitted liability on behalf of Mr Miller some months before. Moreover, the insurer was on notice that hire charges were escalating at a rate that it would have been in a good position to estimate. Despite what the insurer later claimed, it cannot have been in any doubt, had it considered the matter, that the claim had ceased to be a low value claim under £10,000, because of the high value of the appellant's car and the accumulating hire charges. Moreover, whilst the insurer contests that it received all these communications from the appellant's solicitors, it has produced no evidence to substantiate that contention.
Later, in August 2013, the insurer made a voluntary interim payment directly to the appellant in the sum of £14,000. It made a CPR Part 36 offer of £1,870 by letter dated 22 nd August 2013 — no doubt in respect of the personal injury claim. On the appellant's application for a further interim payment, DJ Henthorn ordered a further sum of £2,000 on 26 th September 2013, which was duly paid by the insurer together with the costs that had also been awarded by cheques dated 15 th October 2013.
The matter then came before Deputy DJ Benson at a disposal hearing on 17 th October 2013 at which he awarded the appellant damages in the sum of £75,089 against Mr Miller together with costs summarily assessed at £12,945. This large sum by way of damages was made up mostly of hire and other charges. Notice of that hearing had been sent by the appellant's solicitors to Mr Miller, but not to the insurer, although the appellant's solicitor claims to have sent the insurer a costs schedule on 19 th September 2013 and a hearing bundle (which it expressly denies receiving) on 11 th October 2013.
After the 17 th October 2013 hearing (which neither Mr Miller nor the insurer had attended), the appellant's solicitors wrote to the insurer on 25 th October 2013 notifying it of the award of damages and costs, but not enclosing copies of any orders. On receipt of that notification, the insurers instructed solicitors, Keoghs LLP ("Keoghs"), who, on 13 th November 2013, intimated that they would apply to set aside the judgment, and asked the appellant's solicitors for the claim form, the orders that had been made and other documents, but (despite chasing by email on 20 th November 2013) were not provided with them. On 25 th November 2013, Keoghs, acting for Mr Miller, issued an application under CPR Part 13.3(1)(a) to set aside the judgment "entered on 26/09/13", and seeking permission to serve and file a defence within 14 days. A witness statement of Mr Gary Herring of Keoghs was served with the application making it clear that the insurer was aware that the appellant had "obtained a judgment in the sum of £74,034", but giving the date of the interim payment order, namely 26 th September 2013. Mr Herring complained that he had not been provided with the orders that he had sought, but said that he was making the statement "in support of my application to set aside the judgment pursuant to CPR 13.3", which rule he then set out, thus making it clear that he was applying to set aside a default judgment entered under CPR Part 12. At that stage no fraud was alleged, but it was suggested that Mr Miller had not been correctly served with the proceedings and that the insurer could defend the quantum of the hire charges.
On 7 th February 2014, Ms Jessica Morgan of the appellant's solicitors made a lengthy statement responding to the 25 th November 2013 application, and exhibiting a copy of the default judgment, but not the 17 th October 2013 order. On 10 th February 2014, Keoghs issued a further application seeking (i) that they should cease to act for Mr Miller pursuant to CPR Part 42.3(1), (ii) that the insurer be joined as 2 nd defendant pursuant to CPR Part 19.2(2)(a), and (iii) that Mr Miller's application to set aside judgment be adjourned. Mr Herring made a second statement in support of that application, for the first time expressing concerns that the appellant and Mr Miller were well known to one another before the accident and that the claim was fraudulent.
On 11 th February 2014, Deputy DJ Brown dismissed the application to set aside the judgment because Mr Miller was not there to pursue it, but made the other orders sought at (i) and (ii) in paragraph 8 above. He stayed enforcement of the judgment dated 17 th October 2013 pending a further application to set it aside until 4 th March 2014. On 26 th February 2014, the insurer duly applied to set aside the default judgment dated 8 th August 2013 and the damages judgment dated 17 th October 2014 and for other relief.
On 17 th March 2014, DJ Henthorn set aside both judgments against Mr Miller. On 4 th February 2015, Mr Recorder Gregory (now HH Judge Gregory) dismissed the appellant's appeal. On 15 th May 2015, Lewison LJ granted the appellant permission to bring a second appeal.
DJ Henthorn's decision of 17th March 2014
The district judge set out the history of the litigation and said that the insurer now contended that the claim was fraudulent and that the appellant and Mr Miller knew each other before the accident and had taken part in running races together. The insurer had served a detailed defence, and the appellant had filed a statement in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saima Fatima v Family Channel Ltd
...in in Emojevbe v Secretary of State for Transport [2017] EWCA Civ 934 (“ Emojevbe”) at [21(ii)]). 43 In Gentry v Miller and another [2016] EWCA Civ 141; [2016] 1 WLR 2696 (“ Gentry”) the Court of Appeal held that CPR 3.9 and the principles in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] E......
-
TPE v Harvey Franks
...Christopher Clarke LJ in Regione Piemonte v Dexia Crediop SpA [2014] EWCA Civ 1298, paras 38–41, which was approved in Gentry v Miller [2016] 1 WLR 2696, paras 23–24. In the former case, Christopher Clarke LJ said: “38. A question arose at the hearing of the appeal as to the extent to whi......
-
Goldcrest Distribution Ltd v Charles Joseph McCole and Others
...to applications under rule 13.3.) But I can pass straight to the even more recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Gentry v Miller [2016] EWCA Civ 141. This was a case of a road traffic accident, where the insurer admitted liability under the Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal In......
-
Jonathan Fox v Hannah Wiggins
...1); the reasons why the failure or default occurred (stage 2); and all the circumstances of the case (stage 3). 92 In Gentry v Miller [2016] 1 WLR 2696, [23]–[24], Vos LJ (as he then was) explained the inter-relationship between CPR r 13.3 and the three-stage Denton test: “23. It is useful......
-
Damages For Late Payment Of Claims: Introduction Of s.13A To The Insurance Act 2015
...reasonable timeframe to allow investigation of a complex claim under a contractors' combined liability policy, while in Gentry Miller [2016] EWCA Civ 141, the Court of Appeal held that a period of 2-months was deemed reasonable for the investigation of a low-value road traffic accident Reas......
-
Defendants May Face An Uphill Struggle To Correct Their Default
...as it was, in essence, an application for relief from sanctions. The claimant sought to rely on the decision in Gentry v Miller [2016] 1 WLR 2696. The second defendant argued that an application to set aside did not require a consideration of Denton as CPR Part 13.3 was a stand-alone mechan......