YASUDA FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO OF EUROPE LTD V ORION MARINE INSURANCE UNDERWRITING AGENCY LTD AND ANOTHER
| Pages | 391-398 |
| Published date | 01 April 1995 |
| Date | 01 April 1995 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb024860 |
| Author | J COLMAN |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
YASUDA
FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE CO OF EUROPE LTD V
ORION
MARINE INSURANCE UNDERWRITING AGENCY LTD
AND
ANOTHER
HIGH
COURT
OF
JUSTICE,
QUEEN'S
BENCH
DIVISION.
COLMAN
J
Date of
Hearing:
25th
July,
1994
Date of Judgment: 23rd September, 1994
Reported at: [1995] 2
Weekly
Law
Reports
49
THE FACTS
The Defendants, two associated com-
panies,
acted as underwriting agents
for the Plaintiff under various under-
writing agency agreements. The
agreements were terminated and
ceased to operate for further under-
writing at the end of 1991, but the
Defendants were authorised to con-
tinue to manage the run-off in rela-
tion to risks written on behalf of the
Plaintiff.
Each of the agreements, by
cl.
4.2, contained an express provi-
sion whereby the Plaintiff was entitled
to inspect and take extracts from or
make copies of 'all necessary books,
accounts, records and other docu-
mentation' appertaining to the insur-
ance business transacted on the
Plaintiffs
behalf,
although the
records were to be the property of
the Defendants.
During the period from May 1993
to March 1994 a representative of the
Plaintiff inspected some of the data
held by the Defendants but during
the same period several requests for
access to, and copies of, data were
turned down. The
Plaintiff,
acting on
information obtained by its represen-
tative which led it to believe that the
Defendants had breached various
terms of the agreements between
them, decided to terminate the
Defendants' authority to conduct the
run-off operations. Accordingly the
Plaintiff wrote to the Defendants on
25th April, 1994, alleging the exist-
ence of repudiatory breaches by the
Defendants and purporting to accept
them. On 26th April the Defendants
replied alleging that the content of
the letter of 25th April was itself a
repudiatory breach of contract which
the Defendants accepted.
In consequence, it was for the
Plaintiff itself thereafter to manage
the run-off operations and for that
purpose the Plaintiff made repeated
requests to be allowed to inspect the
books and records and information
391
To continue reading
Request your trial