QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
THE SOCIETY OF LLOYD'S |
Claimant |
|
- and - |
||
ERIC NIGEL LAWS AND OTHERS |
Defendant |
____________________
Jeremy Callman (instructed by Grower Freeman, Solicitors) for the Defendants and Part 30 Claimants (the UNO Names)
Mrs Reisz and Mrs Ann Strong in person
Hearing dates : 16th 20th 21st 22nd and 28th January 2004
____________________
Supplementary Judgment
Crown Copyright ©
Mr Justice Cooke:
i) As already found by me the closed year figures for Mr Drysdale's 1982 underwriting gave rise to a profit of £13,088.50.
ii) The loss on syndicate 126 which remained open for the 1982 year was calculated by Lloyd's at £38,682 and by Mr Drysdale at £51,722 but this latter figure failed to take into account the Equitas release of £12,936, which gives rise to a figure of £38,786. Mr Drysdale now concedes that the Lloyd's release figure is correct. I can proceed on the basis of £38,786 as the right figure, allowing for Mr Drysdale's personal expenses (since the financial accounts for syndicate 126 as at 31st December 1995 showed a net result which would give Mr Drysdale a figure of £38,682, after illustrative personal expenses).
iii) Syndicate 700 also remained open for the 1982 year. Lloyd's calculated a profit for Mr Drysdale's share of £10,478, including reinsurance into Equitas. The reports and accounts as at 31st December 1995 record a profit which, for Mr Drysdale's share would amount to £8,382, the difference once again being probably attributable to personal expenses, but his latest calculations produce a figure of £8142. For these purposes I will take the figure which benefits Mr Drysdale most in this argument, namely £8,142.
iv) The major difference between the calculations arose on syndicate 89 which remained open for the 1982 year. On Mr Drysdale's £25,000 share, Lloyd's calculated his loss, including reinsurance into Equitas at £20,800. Mr Drysdale's calculations totalled £179,678 but it is clear that when one has regard to the loss per £10,000 share, as set out in his table at F5/82 the decimal point has been mis-placed in the calculations for his £25,000 share in each of the years 1985 – 1990. The effect of this is that, on his own original figures, the loss on syndicate 89 was £21,973.50, as compared with the Lloyd's figure or the figure to be derived from the reports and accounts for the syndicate at 31st December 1995, namely £20,122.50. Once again, taking the figure which benefits Mr Drysdale most for the purpose of this argument, I use £21,973.50.
v) In these circumstances, to the 1982 closed year profit figure of £13,088.50 has to be added:
a) the syndicate 126 loss figure of £38,786.
b) the syndicate 700 profit figure of £8,142.
c) the syndicate 89 loss figure of £21,973.50.
This makes for a maximum aggregate loss claimable by Mr Drysdale for his 1982 underwriting of £39,425, as compared with his own most recent calculation of £30,436, which may well be more accurate than my generous assessment for the purposes of this argument only. On this footing whatever rates of interest are allowed, Mr Drysdale's claim cannot arguably equal or over-top the Statutory Demand figure of £310, 504.