Current Law Cases



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


R. v Lloyd's of London Ex p. Briggs


(QBD) Queens Bench Division




October 22, 1999


Colman, J.


Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986 1925) r.6.4(4)


[1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 176


Times, July 30, 1992; Independent, September 16, 1992; Financial Times, July 29, 1992


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 Lloyds (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.




Lloyds, Judicial review, Locus standi


For P: In person. For L: Mark Templeman and James Collins


For L: Company Solicitor


4449/98; 4450/98

Cases cited

Boobyer v. Holman (David) & Co and the Society of Lloyds (No.2) [1993] C.L.Y. 3352