Current Law Cases

 

Scope

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

Case

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

Court

(QBD) Queens Bench Division

Jurisdiction

UKEW

Judgment

October 22, 1999

Judges

Colman, J.

Legislation

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

Reported

[1993] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 176

Reference

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

Abstract

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.

Subject

Insurance

Keywords

Lloyds, Judicial review, Locus standi

Counsel

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

Solicitors

For L: Company Solicitor

Transcript

4449/98; 4450/98

Cases cited

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