Parliamentary
Archives,
HL/PO/JU/18/254
Arbuthnott
(and others) (Respondents) v. Fagan and Feltrim
Underwriting
Agencies Limited (and others) (Appellants) and
two other actions (1st Appeal)
Arbuthnott
(and others) (Respondents) v. Fagan and Feltrim
Underwriting
Agencies Limited (and others) (Appellants) and
two other actions (2nd Appeal)
Deeny
(and others) (Respondents) v. Gooda Walker Limited (In
Voluntary
Liquidation) (and others) (Appellants)
(Conjoined Appeals)
Henderson
(and others) (Respondents) v. Merrett Syndicates
Limited and
others (Appellants) and two other actions
JUDGMENT
Die Lunae 25° Julii 1994
Upon Report from the Appellate Committee to
whom were
referred the Appeals Arbuthnott (and others) against
Fagan and
Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Limited (and others) and
two other
actions (two appeals), Deeny (and others) against Gooda
Walker
Limited (and others) and Henderson (and others) against
Merrett
Syndicates Limited and others and two other actions, That
the
Committee had heard Counsel as well on Tuesday the 15th as
on
Wednesday the 16th, Thursday the 17th, Tuesday the
22nd,
Wednesday the 23rd, Thursday the 24th and Monday the 28th
days
of March last upon the Petitions and Appeals of the
Defendants
listed in the Schedule to the Writs of Summons in
Actions 1992
Folios 1856, 2423 and 3383; of Feltrim Underwriting
Agencies
Limited of Friary Court, 65 Crutched Friars, London EC3N
2NP; of
the Defendant Members' Agents listed in Schedules 4 to 20,
22 to
48 and 50 to 69 of the re-amended Writ of Summons in Action
1993
Folio 335; and of Merrett Syndicates Limited and
Merrett
Underwriting Agency Management Limited, both of Arthur
Castle
House, 33 Creechurch Lane, London EC3A 5EB, praying that
the
matter of the Orders set forth in the Schedules thereto,
namely
Orders of Her Majesty's Court of Appeal of the 13th day
of
December 1993, might be reviewed before Her Majesty the
Queen
in Her Court of Parliament and that the said Orders might
be
reversed, varied or altered or that the Petitioners might
have
such other relief in the premises as to Her Majesty the Queen
in
Her Court of Parliament might seem meet; as upon the cases
of
Hugh Sinclair Arbuthnott and John Keithley Oxley Arbuthnott
(and
the others listed in the first Schedules to the Writs of
Summons
in Actions 1992 Folios 1856, 2423 and 3383); of Michael
Eunan
McLarnon Deeny (and the others listed in Schedules 1 to 71
of the
Writ of Summons in Action 1993 Folio 335); and of Ian
McIntosh
Henderson, William Hallam-Eames and Elise Heckman Hughes
(and the
others listed in the Schedules to the Writs of Summons in
Actions
1992 Folio 1496 and 1993 Folios 145 and 545) lodged in
answer to
the said Appeals; and due consideration had this day of
what was
offered on either side in this Cause:
Judgment: 25 July 1994
HOUSE OF LORDS
ARBUTHNOTT
(AND OTHERS) (RESPONDENTS) v. PAGAN AND FELTRIM
UNDERWRITING
AGENCIES LIMITED (AND OTHERS) (APPELLANTS)
AND TWO OTHER ACTIONS
(1ST APPEAL)
ARBUTHNOTT
(AND OTHERS) (RESPONDENTS) v. PAGAN AND FELTRIM
UNDERWRITING
AGENCIES LIMITED (AND OTHERS) (APPELLANTS)
AND TWO OTHERS ACTIONS
(2ND APPEAL)
DEENY
(AND OTHERS) (RESPONDENTS) v. GOODA WALKER LIMITED
(IN
VOLUNTARY LIQUIDATION) (AND OTHERS) (APPELLANTS)
(CONJOINED APPEALS)
HENDERSON
(AND OTHERS) (RESPONDENTS) v. MERRETT SYNDICATES
LIMITED (AND
OTHERS) (APPELLANTS) AND TWO OTHER ACTIONS
Lord
Keith of Kinkel
Lord Goff of Chieveley
Lord
Browne-Wilkinson
Lord Mustill
Lord Nolan
LORD KEITH OF KINKEL
My Lords.
For the reasons
set out in the speech of my noble and learned friend
Lord Goff of
Chieveley. which I have read in draft and with which I agree,
1
would dismiss these appeals.
LORD GOFF OF CHIEVELEY
My
Lords.
Introduction
The appeals now
before your Lordships' House arise out of a number
of actions
brought by underwriting members (known as Names) of Lloyd's
against
their underwriting agents, in an attempt to recoup at least part of
the
great losses which they have suffered following upon recent
catastrophic
- 1 -
events,
mainly in the United States of America, which have led
to
unprecedented claims being made upon Lloyd's underwriters.
The actions in
question form part of a large number of actions of this
kind,
which are now approaching trial in the Commercial Court. At the
root
of many of these actions lie questions of law, upon the
resolution of which
depends the nature of the legal responsibility
which rested upon underwriting
agents towards the Names for whom
they acted. Accordingly, with the co-
operation of the parties to
the actions out of which the present appeals arise.
Saville J.
ordered that certain issues of principle should be decided
as
preliminary issues. Having heard argument upon these issues, he
gave
judgment on 12 October 1993, his rulings being favourable to
the contentions
advanced on behalf of the Names. On 13 December
1993, the Court of
Appeal unanimously affirmed the decision of
Saville J., for the reasons given
by him. The matter now comes
before your Lordships' House, with the leave
of the House; and the
hearing of the appeals has been expedited, in the hope
that the
fact that the appeals have come before the House will result in as
little
disturbance as possible to the programme now established
for the hearing of
the various Lloyd's actions in the Commercial
Court.
It is necessary
for me now to identify, and place in their context, the
various
issues which fall for consideration on these appeals. But before I
do
so, it is desirable that I should first set out certain basic
facts about the
structure of Lloyd's, with special reference to
the relationship between Names
and their underwriting agents.
Every person
who wishes to become a Name at Lloyd's and who is not
himself or
herself an underwriting agent must appoint an underwriting agent
to
act on his or her behalf, pursuant to an underwriting agency
agreement.
Underwriting agents may act in one of three different
capacities.
They may be members' agents, who
(broadly speaking) advise
Names on their choice of Syndicates,
place Names on the Syndicates chosen
by them, and give general
advice to them.
They may be managing agents, who
underwrite contracts of
insurance at Lloyd's on behalf of the
Names who are members of the
Syndicates under their management,
and who reinsure contracts of insurance
and pay claims.
(3) They may be
combined agents, who perform both the role of
members' agents, and
the role of managing agents in respect of the Syndicates
under
their management.
Until 1990, the
practical position was as follows. Each Name entered
into one or
more underwriting agency agreements with an underwriting agent,
which
was either a members' agent or a combined agent. Each
underwriting
agency agreement governed the relationship between
the Name and the
- 2 -
members' agent,
or between the Name and the combined agent in so far as it
acted
as a members' agent. If however the Name became a member of
a
Syndicate which was managed by the combined agent, the agreement
also
governed the relationship between the Name and the combined
agent acting
in its capacity of managing agent. In such a case the
Name was known as a
direct Name. If however the Name became a
member of a Syndicate which
was managed by some other managing
agent, the Name's underwriting agent
(whether or not it was a
combined agent) entered into a sub-agency Agreement
under which it
appointed the managing agent its sub-agent to act as such in
relation
to the Name. In such a case the Name was known as an Indirect
Name.
Before 1
January 1987, no forms of underwriting agency or
sub-agency
agreements were prescribed at Lloyd's; but standard
clauses were in common
use, and forms of agreement used by
underwriting agents were similar, if not
identical. For the
purposes of the first group of actions now under appeal (the
Merrett
actions), which were concerned with that period, specimen
agreements
were placed before Saville J. for use by him in respect
of those actions.
These are to be found annexed to his judgment.
However, pursuant to the
Lloyd's Act 1982, Byelaw No. 4 of 1984
was made which prescribed forms
of agency agreement and sub-agency
agreement. These forms became
compulsorily applicable as from 1
January 1987, and are the relevant forms
in the other two groups
of actions which are the subject of the present appeals,
the
Feltrim actions and the Gooda Walker actions. A subsequent Byelaw,
No.
8 of 1988, prescribed new standard forms of agreement for use
in 1990 and
subsequent years of account. With these forms, which
swept away the
distinction between direct and indirect Names, your
Lordships are not directly
concerned in the present appeals.
I turn to the
appeals now before your Lordships' House. These are (1)
the
Merrett Appeals, and (2) the conjoined Feltrim and Gooda
Walker
Appeals.
(1) The Merrett Appeals.
The appellants
in these appeals (referred to as "Merretts") are in
fact
Merrett Syndicates Ltd. ("MSL") and Merrett
Underwriting Agency
Management Ltd. ("MUAM"). Up to 1
January 1986, MSL was a combined
agent. It was the Managing Agent
of Syndicate 418/417, and was also a
members' agent. From 1
January 1986, MUAM became the Managing Agent
of Syndicate 418/417,
and MSL operated solely as a members' agent. There
are three
groups of Merrett actions brought by Names who were members
of
Syndicate 418/417. In all three groups of actions, there are
complaints of
negligent closure of a year or years of account into
subsequent years by
reinsurance to close ("RITC"). In
one of them, there is also a complaint as
to the writing of
certain contracts of insurance; and in this case there is also
an
issue of limitation.
- 3 -
(2)(a) The Feltrim Appeals.
The appellants
are (i) Feltrim Underwriting Agencies Ltd. ("Feltrim"),
which
acted as a managing agent only; and (ii) about 40 members'
agents-
("the Feltrim Members' Agents"), which are in
fact unrelated to Feltrim. In
the actions which are the subject of
these appeals, Names who were members
of Syndicates managed by
Feltrim sue Feltrim as managing agents, and also
sue the Feltrim
members' agents as their members' agents. All the Names are
indirect
Names. The Names allege against Feltrim negligent underwriting
during
the years 1987-1989 arising out of their Syndicates' participation in
the
London Market Excess of Loss ("LMX") business, it
being alleged that the
underwriters assumed greatly excessive
aggregate liabilities, and took out far
too little reinsurance.
The Feltrim members' agents are sued on the basis that
they are
contractually liable for the defaults of Feltrim as managing agents
to
whom the underwriting was delegated. There is no limitation
issue.
(2)(b) The Gooda Walker Appeals.
The appellants
are 65 members' agents ("the Gooda Walker Members'
Agents"),
against which it is alleged by Names that they are
contractually
liable to the Names for failure by the managing
agents of the Syndicates of
which the Names were members, to which
the Gooda Walker Members'
Agents had delegated the function of
underwriting, to exercise reasonable care
and skill in relation to
such underwriting.
It might have
been expected that, in all three groups of appeals, there
would be
appeals by both the members' agents and the managing agents: and
that
in each case issues would arise whether there was liability on their
part
in contract, or in tort, or for breach of fiduciary duty. But
that is not in fact
the case. In the case of the Merrett Appeals,
there is no issue before your
Lordships between the Names and
their members' agents acting as such.
Except for one entirely
distinct issue concerned with RITC, the appeals are
concerned only
with the issue of liability, either in tort or for breach
of
fiduciary duty, of Merretts as managing agents, whether to
direct Names
(where Merretts were combined agents) or to indirect
Names. By way of
contrast, in the Gooda Walker Appeals the Gooda
Walker Managing Agents
are not appealing to this House against the
decision of the Court of Appeal,
with the result that the ruling
of the Court of Appeal that they owed a
contractual duty to direct
Names, and a duty of care in tort to indirect Names,
will remain
binding as between them and the Names in question. The only
issue
now before your Lordships on the Gooda Walker appeals arises
in
relation to the agency agreements entered into between Names
and the Gooda
Walker Members' Agents. So far as the Feltrim
appeals are concerned,
however, issues arise both as to Feltrim's
liability as managing agents, viz.
whether Feltrim owed a duty of
care in tort, or as fiduciary, to the indirect
Names who were
members of the Feltrim Syndicates in the years 1987-1989,
and as
to the Feltrim Members' Agents' liability as such in relation to the
- 4 -
agency
agreements entered into between them and Names, as in the
Gooda
Walker appeals.
In the result, the following
issues have been identified as arising for
the decision of your
Lordships' House on these appeals:
Issue 1.
(A). Merrett
Appeals. Liability of managing agents to Names under
the forms of
agreement in force before 1987.
(1) Duty of
care - indirect Names. Did managing agents (who
were not also
members agents) owe indirect Names a duty under the pre-1985
Byelaw
form of underwriting agency agreement to carry out their
underwriting
functions with reasonable care and skill for the 1979
to 1985 years of account
inclusive?
(a) Does the
law of tort impose any duty upon managing agents not
to cause
purely economic loss to Names?
(b) Does the
"absolute discretion" conferred upon managing agents
under
the pre-1985 Byelaw form of underwriting agency agreement
preclude
the implication of any duty other than duties to act
honestly, rationally and
loyally?
(2) Duty
of care - direct Names. Did Merretts as managing agents
who
were also members' agents owe direct Names a non-contractual
duty
under the pre-1985 Byelaw forms of underwriting agency
agreement to carry
put their underwriting functions with
reasonable care and skill for the 1979
to 1985 years of account
inclusive?
(3) Fiduciary
duty. Did Merretts as managing agents (whether they
were also
members' agents or not) owe Names as fiduciary a duty to conduct
the
underwriting for the account of the Names with reasonable care and
skill
for the 1979 to 1985 years of account (inclusive) equivalent
to the alleged duty
of care in tort?
(B). Feltrim
Appeals. Liability of managing agents to names under
the forms of
agreement in force between 1987 and 1989.
Duty of care - indirect
Names. In tort Did Feltrim, a
managing agent only,
owe a duty of care in tort to the (indirect) Names on the
Feltrim
Syndicates to carry out the conduct and management of
the
underwriting business of the Feltrim Syndicates with
reasonable care and skill
at any material time between 1987 and
1989?
Fiduciary duty. As
fiduciary Did Feltrim owe Names a
fiduciary duty equivalent
to a duty of care in tort as described above?
- 5 -
Issue 2.
Feltrim and
Gooda Walker Appeals. Liability of members' agents to
Names under
the forms of agreement in force during the period 1987 to 1989;-
Whether,
in relation to, and on the true construction of, agency
agreements
entered into between Names and members' agents in the standard
form
provided for by Lloyd's Byelaw No. 1 of 1985:
(1) It was a
term of the said agency agreements that the actual
underwriting
would be carried on with reasonable care and skill, so that
the
members agents remained directly responsible to their Names
for any failure
to exercise reasonable care and skill by the
managing agents of any particular
Syndicate to whom such
underwriting had been delegated.
(2) There was a
term of the said agreements that the members' agent
was only
required to exercise reasonable care and skill in relation to
such
activities and functions as members' agents by custom and
practice actually
perform for their Names personally.
(3) There was a
direct contractual relationship of principal and
agent between
Names and the managing agents of Syndicates in which the
Names
participated.
Issue 3.
Merrett Appeals. Reinsurance to close.
Whether for
Names who executed the new prescribed 1985 Byelaw
form or
underwriting agency agreement the contractual relationship
between
such Names for the 1985 underwriting year of account and
their members'
agents and between their members' agents and the
managing agent in relation
to the acceptance in about June 1987 by
the Syndicate for the 1985
underwriting year of account of the
reinsurance to close the 1984 underwriting
year of account was
governed by the 1985 Byelaw form of agreement or by
the pre-1985
Byelaw form of agreement.
For the purpose
of considering these various issues, I shall for
convenience
organise them a little differently, as will appear hereafter.
I Merrett and Feltrim Appeals.
A Duty
of care - Liability of managing agents to Names (both direct
and
indirect Names) in tort.
(1) Introduction
- 6 -
I turn now to
the tortious issues which arise in the Merrett and Feltrim
appeals.
The first issue, in the order in which they are stated, is
concerned
with the question whether managing agents, which were
not also members'
agents, owed to indirect Names a duty of care in
tort to 'carry out their
underwriting functions with .reasonable
care and skill. The second issue is
concerned with the question
whether managing agents, which were also
members' agents, owed
such a duty to direct Names.
The first of
these issues, relating to indirect Names, arises in both the
Merrett
appeals and the Feltrim appeals. However the issue in the
Merrett
appeals arises in the context of the pre-1985 Byelaw forms
of agency and sub-
agency agreements, whereas that in the Feltrim
appeals does so in the context
of the forms of agreement
prescribed under the 1985 byelaw. The second of
these issues,
relating to direct Names, arises only in the Merrett appeals, in
the
context of the pre-1985 Byelaw forms.
It is desirable
that I should at once identify the reasons why Names in
the
Merrett and Feltrim actions are seeking to establish that there is a
duty of
care owed to them by managing agents in tort. First, the
direct Names in the
Merrett actions seek to hold the managing
agents concurrently liable in
contract and in tort. Where, as in
the case of direct Names, the agents are
combined agents, there
can be no doubt that there is a contract between the
Names and the
agents, acting as managing agents, in respect of the
underwriting
carried out by the managing agents on behalf of the Names as
members
of the Syndicate or Syndicates under their management, the
only
question being as to the scope of the managing agents'
contractual
responsibility in this respect. Even so. in the
Merrett actions. Names are
concerned to establish the existence of
a concurrent duty of care in tort, if
only because there is a
limitation issue in one of the actions, in which Names
wish
therefore to be able to take advantage of the more favourable date
for the
accrual of the cause of action in tort, as opposed to that
in contract. Second,
the indirect Names in both the Merrett and
the Feltrim actions are seeking to
establish the existence of a
duty of care on the part of the managing agents in
tort, no doubt
primarily to establish a direct liability to them by the
managing
agents, but also, in the case of the Merrett actions, to
take advantage of the
more advantageous position on limitation.
Your Lordships were informed that
there is no limitation issue in
the Feltrim actions.
I turn next to
the forms of agreement which provide the contractual
context for
these issues. I have already recorded that, so far as the
pre-1985
Byelaw forms are concerned, no form was prescribed, but
those in use were
substantially similar if not identical, and that
specimen forms of agency and
sub-agency agreement were agreed for
the purposes of these preliminary
issues and are scheduled to the
judgment of Saville J. The most relevant
provisions of the
specimen forms are the following.
(1) Agency Agreement
- 7 -
" 1. The
Agent shall act as the underwriting agent for the Name
for the
purposes of underwriting at Lloyd's for the account of
the Name
policies and contracts of insurance reinsurance and
guarantee
relating to all classes of insurance business which
with the
sanction of the Committee of Lloyd's may be
transacted at Lloyd's
by the Syndicate.
. . .
4. The Agent
shall have full power and authority to appoint and
employ the
Sub-Agent to carry on or manage the underwriting
and to delegate
to or confer upon the Sub-Agent all or any of
the powers
authorities discretions and rights given to the Agent
by this
agreement.
. . .
6. (a) The
Agent shall have the sole control and management
of the
underwriting and absolute discretion as to the acceptance
of risks
and settlement of claims whether such claims shall in
the opinion
of the Agent be legally enforceable or not.
. . .
(d) The Name
shall not in any way interfere with the exercise
of the aforesaid
control or management or discretion.
7. The
following provisions shall apply concerning the
accounts of
the underwriting:-
. . .
(e) The
Syndicate account of any calendar year shall not be
closed before
the expiration of the two calendar years next
following the
calendar year in question and in order to close
the Syndicate
account of any year the Agent may:-
(i) re-insure
all or any outstanding liabilities in such
manner and by debiting
such account with such sum as
the Agent shall in the absolute
discretion of the Agent
think fit as a premium for reinsurance and
crediting the
reinsurance premium to the Syndicate account of
the
next succeeding year or
(ii) re-insure
all or any outstanding liabilities of such
account into the
account of any other year then
remaining open or in any other
manner which the Agent
thinks fit or
(iii) allow the
whole or part of a Syndicate account of
any year to remain open
until its outstanding liabilities
shall have run off
- 8 -
. . .
12.(a) The
Agent may from time to time retain out of the
profits of the
underwriting which would otherwise be payable
to the Name any
moneys which the Agent may in the absolute
discretion of the Agent
(subject to any requirements prescribed
by Lloyd's) think
desirable to carry to reserve and such moneys
may be placed on
deposit at any bank or discount house of
public or local
authorities or building society or may be
invested in such stocks
funds shares or securities (including
bearer securities) in any
part of the world as the Agent may
determine and the Agent shall
not be responsible for any loss
of principal or interest on such
deposits or investments.
Interest or dividends earned on any such
deposits or
investments shall be credited to the Name in respect
to the
Name's due proportion thereof."
(2) Sub-Agency Agreement
"2. The
Sub-Agent agrees and is retained and authorised to act
as
Underwriting Sub-Agent for the Agent for the purpose of
underwriting
at Lloyd's in the Names and for the account of
each of the Names
policies and contracts of insurance
reinsurance and guarantee
relating to all classes of insurance
business which with the
sanction of the Committee of Lloyd's
may be transacted as
insurance business and of carrying on for
each of the Names the
business of Marine Underwriter at
Lloyd's and the appointment of
the Sub-Agent shall take effect
in respect of each of the Names on
and from the date specified
in the second column of the Schedule
hereto opposite the name
of each of the Names.
. . .
5. The Agent
delegates to the Sub-Agent the exercise of all
such powers
authorities discretions and rights conferred upon
the Agent by the
Underwriting Agency agreement as it may be
in any way necessary
for the Sub-Agent to have to enable the
Sub-Agent or any
underwriter or agent appointed by the Sub-
Agent to carry on the
underwriting for the Names and to close
the accounts of the Names.
6. Subject to
the provisions of clause 7 hereof the
underwriting
shall be conducted and the accounts thereof shall
be kept and made
up and the profits ascertained in such manner
as the Sub-Agent may
for the time being think fit and the Sub-
Agent shall have the
sole control and management of the
- 9 -
underwriting
and sole discretion as to the acceptance of risks
and the
compromise or settlement of claims.
. . .
8. All
questions relating to the investment of premiums and
other monies
not required for the current service of the
underwriting and to
the time and manner of paying over profits
and the placing of sums
to a reserve shall be decided by the
Sub-Agent and subject as
aforesaid the Sub-Agent shall pay
over the profits of the
underwriting to the Agent for
distribution to the Names."
Turning to the
forms of agency and sub-agency agreements prescribed
by the 1985
Byelaw, I will set out the material provisions below when
considering
Issue 2, concerned with the liability of members' agents.
These
provisions will therefore be available for reference, and I
do not propose to
repeat them here.
In the result,
in neither the specimen agreements nor the agreements
prescribed
by the 1985 Byelaw is there any express provision imposing on
the
agent a duty to exercise care and skill in the exercise of the
relevant functions
under the agreement: but I understand it not to
be in dispute that a term to
that effect must be implied into the
agreements. It is against that background
that the question falls
to be considered whether a like obligation rested upon
the
managing agents in tort, so that the managing agents which were
also
members' agents owed such a duty of care in tort to direct
Names, with the
effect that the direct Names had alternative
remedies, in contract and tort.
against the managing agents; and
whether managing agents which were not
also members' agents owed
such a duty of care in tort to indirect Names, so
that the
indirect Names had a remedy in tort against the managing
agents,
notwithstanding the existence of a contractual structure
embracing indirect
Names, members' agents and managing agents,
under which such a duty was
owed in contract by the managing
agents to the members' agents, and by the
members' agents to the
indirect Names. Furthermore, the question also arises
whether,
under the pre-1985 forms of agreement, the absolute discretion as
to
the acceptance of risks (and settlement of claims) vested in agents
under
clause 6(a) of the agency agreement, and delegated by them
to sub-agents (the
managing agents) under clauses 5 and 6 of the
sub-agency agreement, was
effective to exclude any duty of care
which might otherwise have been
imposed upon the managing agents,
either in contract or in tort.
Saville J.
resolved all these issues in favour of the Names. He held
that a
duty of care was owed by managing agents in tort both to direct
Names
and to indirect Names, and that the existence of such a duty
of care was not
excluded by reason of the relevant contractual
regime, whether under the pre-
1985 specimen agreements, or under
the forms of agreement prescribed by the
1985 Byelaw. In
particular, he held that the absolute discretion conferred on
- 10 -
the agent under
clause 6(a) of the pre-1985 Byelaw specimen agency
agreement, and
delegated to the managing agent under clauses 5 and 6 of the
related
sub-agency agreement, did not exclude any such duty of care. On
all
these points Saville J,'s decision was, as I have recorded,
affirmed by the
Court of Appeal.
(2) The argument of the Managing Agents
The main
argument advanced by the managing agents against the
existence of
a duty of care in tort was that the imposition of such a duty
upon
them was inconsistent with the contractual relationship
between the parties.
In the case of direct Names, where there was
a direct contract between the
Names and the managing agents, the
argument was that the contract legislated
exclusively for the
relationship between the parties, and that a parallel duty of
care
in tort was therefore excluded by the contract. In the case of
indirect
Names, reliance was placed on the fact that there had
been brought into
existence a contractual chain, between Name and
members' agent, and
between members' agent and managing agent; and
it was said that, by
structuring their contractual relationship in
this way, the indirect Names and
the managing agents had
deliberately excluded any direct responsibility,
including any
tortious duty of care, to the indirect Names by the managing
agents.
In particular, the argument ran. it was as a result not permissible
for
the Names to pray in aid, for limitation purposes, the more
favourable time
for accrual of a cause of action in tort. To do
so, submitted the managing
agents, would deprive them of their
contractual expectations, and would avoid
the policy of Parliament
that there are different limitation regimes for contract
and tort.
Such was the
main argument advanced on behalf of the managing
agents. Moreover,
as appears from my summary of it, the argument was not
precisely
the same in the case of direct Names and indirect Names
respectively.
However, in any event, I think it desirable first to consider
the
principle upon which a duty of care in tort may in the present
context be
imposed upon the managing agents, assuming that to
impose such a duty
would not be inconsistent with the relevant
contractual relationship. In
considering this principle, I bear in
mind in particular the separate submission
of the managing agents
that no such duty should be imposed, because the loss
claimed by
the Names is purely economic loss. However the identification of
the
principle is, in my opinion, relevant to the broader question of the
impact
of the relevant contract or contracts.
(3) The governing principle
Even so, I can
take this fairly shortly. I turn immediately to the
decision of
this House in Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller &
Partners Ltd.
[1964] AC 465. There, as is of course well
known, the question arose
whether bankers could be held liable in
tort in respect of the gratuitous
provision of a negligently
favourable reference for one of their customers,
- 11 -
when they knew
or ought to have known that the plaintiff would rely on their
skill
and judgment in furnishing the reference, and the plaintiff in fact
relied
upon it and in consequence suffered financial loss. Your
Lordships' House
held that, in principle, an action would lie in
such circumstances in tort; but-
that, in the particular case, a
duty of care was negatived by a disclaimer of
responsibility under
cover of which the reference was supplied.
The case has
always been regarded as important in that it established
that, in
certain circumstances, a duty of care may exist in respect of words
as
well as deeds, and further that liability may arise in
negligence in respect of
pure economic loss which is not parasitic
upon physical damage. But, perhaps
more important for the future
development of the law, and certainly more
relevant for the
purposes of the present case, is the principle upon which
the
decision was founded. The governing principles are perhaps now
perceived
to be most clearly stated in the speeches of Lord Morris
of Borth-y-Gest (with
whom Lord Hodson agreed) and of Lord Devlin.
Lord Morris said, at
pp. 502-503):
"My Lords,
I consider that it follows and that it should now be
regarded as
settled that if someone possessed of a special skill
undertakes,
quite irrespective of contract, to apply that skill for
the
assistance of another person who relies upon such skill, a
duty of care
will arise. The fact that the service is to be given
by means of or by
the instrumentality of words can make no
difference. Furthermore, if
in a sphere in which a person is so
placed that others could reasonably
rely upon his judgment or his
skill or upon his ability to make careful
inquiry, a person takes
it upon himself to give information or advice
to, or allows his
information or advice to be passed on to. another
person who, as
he knows or should know, will place reliance upon it.
then a duty
of care will arise.
Lord Devlin said, at p. 526:
"The
respondents in this case cannot deny that they were performing
a
service. Their sheet anchor is that they were performing
it
gratuitously and therefore no liability for its performance can
arise.
My Lords, in my opinion this is not the law. A promise
given without
consideration to perform a service cannot be
enforced as a contract by
the promisee; but if the service is in
fact performed and done
negligently, the promisee can recover in
an action in tort."
He then cited a number of authorities, and continued, at pp. 528-529:
"I think,
therefore, that there is ample authority to justify your
Lordships
in saying now that the categories of special relationships
which
may give rise to a duty to take care in word as well as in deed
are
not limited to contractual relationships or to relationships
of
fiduciary duty, but include also relationships which in the
words of
- 12 -
Lord Shaw in
Norton v. Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932, 972
are
'equivalent to contract,' that is, where there is an
assumption of
responsibility in circumstances in which, but for
the absence of
consideration, there would be a contract. Where
there is an express
undertaking, an express warranty as distinct
from mere representation,
there can be little difficulty. The
difficulty arises in discerning those
cases in which the
undertaking is to be implied. In this respect the
absence of
consideration is not irrelevant. Payment for information or
advice
is very good evidence that it is being relied upon and that
the
informer or adviser knows that it is. Where there is no
consideration,
it will be necessary to exercise greater care in
distinguishing between
social and professional relationships and
between those which are of
a contractual character and those which
are not. It may often be
material to consider whether the adviser
is acting purely out of good
nature or whether he is getting his
reward in some indirect form. The
service that a bank performs in
giving a reference is not done simply
out of a desire to assist
commerce. It would discourage the customers
of the bank if their
deals fell through because the bank had refused to
testify to
their credit when it was good.
"I have
had the advantage of reading all the opinions prepared by
your
Lordships and of studying the terms which your Lordships
have
framed by way of definition of the sort of relationship which
gives rise
to a responsibility towards those who act upon
information or advice
and so creates a duty "of care towards
them. I do not understand any
of your Lordships to hold that it is
a responsibility imposed by law
upon certain types of persons or
in certain sons of situations. It is a
responsibility that is
voluntarily accepted or undertaken, either
generally where a
general relationship, such as that of solicitor and
client or
banker and customer, is created, or specifically in relation to
a
particular transaction."
He said, at pp. 531-532:
"Since the
essence of the matter in the present case and in others of
the
same type is the acceptance of responsibility, I should like to
guard
against the imposition of restrictive terms notwithstanding
that the
essential condition is fulfilled. If a defendant says to
a plaintiff: 'Let
me do this for you: do not waste your money in
employing a
professional, I will do it for nothing and you can
rely on me.' I do
not think he could escape liability simply
because he belonged to no
profession or calling, had no
qualifications or special skill and did not
hold himself out as
having any. The relevance of these factors is to
show the
unlikelihood of a defendant in such circumstances assuming
a legal
responsibility, and as such they may often be decisive. But
they
are not theoretically conclusive and so cannot be the subject
of
definition. It would be unfortunate if they were. For it would
mean
that plaintiffs would seek to avoid the rigidity of the
definition by
- 13 -
bringing the
action in contract as in De La Bere v. Pearson Ltd. [1908]
1
K.B. 280 and setting up something that would do for
consideration.
That, to my mind, would be an undesirable
development in the law;
and the best way of avoiding it is to
settle the law so that the presence'-
or absence of consideration
makes no difference."
From these
statements, and from their application in Hedley Byrne, we
can
derive some understanding of the breadth of the principle
underlying the case.
We can see that it rests upon a relationship
between the parties, which may
be general or specific to the
particular transaction, and which may or may not
be contractual in
nature. All of their Lordships spoke in terms of one party
having
assumed or undertaken a responsibility towards the other. On
this
point. Lord Devlin spoke in particularly clear terms in both
passages from his
speech which I have quoted above. Further, Lord
Morris spoke of that party
being possessed of a "special
skill" which he undertakes to "apply for the
assistance
of another who relies upon such skill". But the facts of
Hedley
Byrne itself, which was concerned with the liability
of a banker to the
recipient for negligence in the provision of a
reference gratuitously supplied.
show that the concept of a
"special skill" must be understood broadly,
certainly
broadly enough to include special knowledge. Again, though
Hedley
Byrne was concerned with the provision of
information and advice, the
example given by Lord Devlin of the
relationship between solicitor and client,
and his and Lord
Morris' statements of principle, show that the principle
extends
beyond the provision of information and advice to include
the
performance of other services. It follows, of course, that
although, in the
case of the provision of information and advice,
reliance upon it by the other
party will be necessary to establish
a cause of action (because otherwise the
negligence will have no
causative effect), nevertheless there may be other
circumstances
in which there will be the necessary reliance to give rise to
the
application of the principle. In particular, as cases
concerned with solicitor
and client demonstrate, where the
plaintiff entrusts the defendant with the
conduct of his affairs,
in general or in particular, he may be held to have
relied on the
defendant to exercise due skill and care in such conduct.
In subsequent
cases concerned with liability under the Hedley Byrne
principle
in respect of negligent misstatements, the question has
frequently
arisen whether the plaintiff falls within the category
of persons to whom the
maker of the statement owes a duty of care.
In seeking to contain that
category of persons within reasonable
bounds, there has been some tendency
on the part of the courts to
criticise the concept of "assumption of
responsibility"
as being "unlikely to be a helpful or realistic test in
most
cases" (see Smith v. Eric S. Bush [1990] 1 AC 831, 864-865, per Lord
Griffiths: and see also Caparo
Industries Plc v. Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605,
628. per
Lord Roskill). However, at least in cases such as the present,
in
which the same problem does not arise, there seems to be no
reason why
recourse should not be had to the concept, which
appears after all to have
been adopted, in one form or another, by
all of their Lordships in Medley
- 14 -
Byrne [1964] AC 465 (see, e.g., Lord Reid at pp. 483, 486 and 487; Lord
Morris
(with whom Lord Hodson agreed) at p. 494; Lord Devlin at pp. 529
and
531; and Lord Pearce at p. 538). Furthermore, especially in a
context
concerned with a liability which may arise under a
contract or in a situation
"equivalent to contract", it
must be expected that an objective test will be
applied when
asking the question whether, in a particular case,
responsibility
should be held to have been assumed by the
defendant to the plaintiff: see
Caparo Industries Plc v.
Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, 637, per Lord Oliver
of
Aylmerton. In addition, the concept provides its own explanation
why
there is no problem in cases of this kind about liability for
pure economic
loss; for if a person assumes responsibility to
another in respect of certain
services, there is no reason why he
should not be liable in damages for that
other in respect of
economic loss which flows from the negligent performance
of those
services. It follows that, once the case is identified as falling
within
the Hedley Byrne principle, there should be no need
to embark upon any
further enquiry whether it is "fair, just
and reasonable" to impose liability for
economic loss - a
point which is, I consider, of some importance in the
present
case. The concept indicates too that in some circumstances,
for
example where the undertaking to furnish the relevant service
is given on an
informal occasion, there may be no assumption of
responsibility; and likewise
that an assumption of responsibility
may be negatived by an appropriate
disclaimer. I wish to add in
parenthesis that, as Oliver J. recognised in
Midland Bank Trust
Co. Ltd. v. Hett, Stubbs & Kemp [1979] Ch. 384, 416F-
G.
(a case concerned with concurrent liability of solicitors in tort and
contract,
to which I will have to refer in a moment) an assumption
of responsibility by,
for example, a professional man may give
rise to liability in respect of
negligent omissions as much as
negligent acts of commission, as for example
when a solicitor
assumes responsibility for business on behalf of his client and
omits
to take a certain step, such as the service of a document, which
falls
within the responsibility so assumed by him.
(4) The application of the principle to managing agents at Lloyds
Since it has
been submitted on behalf of the managing agents that no
liability
should attach to them in negligence in the present case because
the
only damage suffered by the Names consists of pure economic
loss, the
question arises whether the principle in Hedley Byrne
is capable of applying
in the case of underwriting agents at
Lloyds who are managing agents. Like
Saville J. and the Court of
Appeal, I have no difficulty in concluding that the
principle is
indeed capable of such application. The principle has been
expressly
applied to a number of different categories of person who
perform
services of a professional or quasi-professional nature,
such as bankers (in
Hedley Byrne itself); solicitors (as
foreshadowed by Lord Devlin in Hedley
Byrne, and as held in
the leading case of Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd v. Hett,
Stubbs
& Kemp [1979] Ch. 384, and other cases in which that
authority has
been followed); surveyors and valuers (as in Smith
v. Eric S. Bush [1990] 1
A.C. 831); and accountants (as in
Caparo Industries Plc. v. Dickman [1990]
- 15 -
2 A.C. 605).
Another category of persons to whom the principle has been
applied,
and on which particular reliance was placed by the Names in
the
courts below and in argument before your Lordships, is
insurance brokers.
As Phillips J. pointed out in Youell v.
Bland Welch & Co. Ltd. (The-
Superhulls Cover Case No. 2)
[1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 431, 459, it has been
accepted, since before
1964, that an insurance broker owes a duty of care in
negligence
towards his client, whether the broker is bound by contract or
not.
Furthermore, in Punjab National Bank v. DeBoinville [1992]
1 Lloyd's Rep.
7 it was held by the Court of Appeal, affirming the
decision of Hobhouse J.,
that a duty of care was owed by an
insurance broker not only to his client but
also to a specific
person whom he knew was to become an assignee of the
policy. For
my part I can see no reason why a duty of care should not
likewise
be owed by managing agents at Lloyds to a Name who is a member
of
a Syndicate under the management of the agents. Indeed, as Saville J.
and
the Court of Appeal both thought, the relationship between
Name and
managing agent appears to provide a classic example of
the type of
relationship to which the principle in Hedley Byrne
applies. In so saying, I
put on one side the question of the
impact, if any, upon the relationship of the
contractual context
in which it is set. But, that apart, there is in my opinion
plainly
an assumption of responsibility in the relevant sense by the
managing
agents towards the Names in their Syndicates. The
managing agents have
accepted the Names as members of a Syndicate
under their management.
They obviously hold themselves out as
possessing a special expertise to advise
the Names on the
suitability of risks to be underwritten; and on the
circumstances
in which, and the extent to which, reinsurance should be taken
out
and claims should be settled. The Names, as the managing agents
well
knew, placed implicit reliance on that expertise, in that
they gave authority to
the managing agents to bind them to
contracts of insurance and reinsurance
and to the settlement of
claims. I can see no escape from the conclusion that.
in these
circumstances, prima facie a duty of care is owed in tort by
the
managing agents to such Names. To me, it does not matter if
one proceeds
by way of analogy from the categories of relationship
already recognised as
falling within the principle in Hedley
Byrne or by a straight application of the
principle stated in
the Hedley Byrne case [1964] AC 465 itself. On either
basis
the conclusion is, in my opinion, clear. Furthermore, since the
duty
rests on the principle in Hedley Byrne, no problem
arises from the fact that
the loss suffered by the Names is pure
economic loss.
This conclusion
is, however, subject to the impact, if any, of the
contractual
context. In argument before your Lordships this was regarded
as
constituting the main basis for the managing agents' challenge
to the
conclusion on this point of the courts below. To this point
I must therefore
turn: but before I do so I propose to consider
briefly, if only to put it on one
side, the question whether,
under the pre-1985 forms of agreement, a duty of
care on the part
of the managing agents was excluded by the absolute
discretion
vested in them under their contract with the direct Names, or
with
the members' agents in cases involving indirect Names.
- 16 -
(5) Absolute Discretion
I can deal with
this point briefly because, like the Court of Appeal, I
agree with
Saville J. that there is no substance in it. It was the submission
of
the managing agents in the Merrett appeals before your
Lordships, as it had
been before Saville J., that there was an
unbroken line of authority supporting
the proposition that the
expression "absolute discretion" in the context of
a
private law agreement meant that the exercise of the power given
by the
agreement to the recipient of the power cannot be
challenged by the donor or
beneficiary of the power unless (a) the
exercise of the power is in bad faith,
or (b) (arguably) the
exercise of the power is totally unreasonable. It
followed, so the
argument ran, that a duty to exercise due skill or care,
whether
contractual or extra-contractual, was inconsistent with the
bargain
and so must be excluded. However, it appears to me, as it
did to the judge,
that in the present context the words used
cannot have the effect of excluding
a duty of care, contractual or
otherwise. Clear words are required to exclude
liability in
negligence; and in the present case the words can, and in my
opinion
should, be directed towards the scope of the agents' authority.
No
doubt the result is that very wide authority has been vested in
the agents; but
the suggestion that the agent should as a result
be under no duty to exercise
due skill and care in the exercise of
his function under the agreement is, in the
present context, most
surprising. I am content to adopt the following passage
from the
judgment of Saville J. as my own:
"As I have
said in other cases, Lloyd's could not exist as an insurance
and
reinsurance market unless the business is conducted by
professionals
who must be given the widest possible powers to act on
behalf of
the Names. Thus the underwriting agency agreement makes
absolutely
clear that the Name must leave it exclusively to the
underwriting
agents actually to run the business. The standard of
behaviour to
be expected of the underwriting agents in carrying out
this task
is an entirely different matter. The underwriting agency
agreement
contains no express provisions in this regard, but I do not
find
this in the least surprising, since it seems to me literally to
go
without saying that the underwriting agents must act with
reasonable
care and skill in exercising their authority and
carrying on the
underwriting business on behalf of the Name. The
very fact that the
agents are given the widest possible authority
to act on behalf of the
Name, together with the fact that the
Name's potential liability for the
actions of the agents is
unlimited and the further fact that the agents
receive
remuneration for exercising their professional skills on behalf
of
the Name, seem to me to point irresistibly to the conclusion that
in
such a relationship the law does (as a matter of common sense
it
should) impose a duty of reasonable care and skill upon
the
underwriting agents of the kind alleged by the Names, which
could
only be modified or excluded by clear agreement between the
parties.
I can find nothing in the underwriting agency agreement
which
indicates that this duty (the ordinary one owed by any
professional
- 17 -
person) is in
any way modified or excluded in the present cases, nor
to my mind
is there anything of relevance in this context in the sub-
agency
agreement."
For these
reasons I am, like both courts below, unable to accept the
managing
agents' argument on this point. With this point out of
the way I can turn to
the main argument on this part of the case,
relating to the impact of the
contractual context.
(6) The impact of the contractual context.
All systems of
law which recognise a law of contract and a law of tort
(or
delict) have to solve the problem of the possibility of concurrent
claims
arising from breach of duty under the two rubrics of the
law. Although there
are variants, broadly speaking two possible
solutions present themselves:
either to insist that the claimant
should pursue his remedy in contract alone.
or to allow him to
choose which remedy he prefers. As my noble and learned
friend
Lord Mustill and I have good reason to know (see J. Bracconot et
Cie
v. Compagnie des Messageries Maritimes (The Sindh) [1975]
1 Lloyd's Rep.
372). France has adopted the former solution in its
doctrine of non cumul.
under which the concurrence of claims in
contract and tort is outlawed (see
Tony Weir in XI Int. Encycl.
Comp. L., ch. 12. paras. 47-72, at para. 52).
The reasons given
for this conclusion are (1) respect for the will of the
legislator,
and (2) respect for the will of the parties to the contract (see:
para.
53). The former does not concern us; but the latter is of
vital importance.
It is however open to various interpretations.
For such a policy does not
necessarily require the total rejection
of concurrence, but only so far" as a
concurrent remedy in
tort is inconsistent with the terms of the contract. It
comes
therefore as no surprise to learn that the French doctrine is
not
followed in all civil law jurisdictions, and that concurrent
remedies in tort and
contract are permitted in other civil law
countries, notably Germany
(see: para. 58). I only pause to
observe that it appears to be accepted that no
perceptible harm
has come to the German system from admitting concurrent
claims.
The situation
in common law countries, including of course England.
is
exceptional, in that the common law grew up within a
procedural
framework uninfluenced by Roman law. The law was
categorised by
reference to the forms of action, and it was not
until the abolition of the forms
of action by the Common Law
Procedure Act 1852 that it became necessary
to reclassify the law
in substantive terms. The result was that common
lawyers did at
last segregate our law of obligations into contract and tort,
though
in so doing they relegated quasi-contractual claims to the status of
an
appendix to the law of contract, thereby postponing by a
century or so the
development of a law of restitution. Even then,
there was no systematic
reconsideration of the problem of
concurrent claims in contract and tort. We
can see the courts
rather grappling with unpromising material drawn from the
old
cases in which liability in negligence derived largely from
categories based
- 18 -
upon the status
of the defendant. In a sense, we must not be surprised: for
no
significant law faculties were established at our universities until
the late
19th century, and so until then there was no academic
opinion available to
guide or stimulate the judges. Even so, it is
a remarkable fact-mat there was
little consideration of the
problem of concurrent remedies in our academic
literature until
the second half of the 20th century, though in recent years
the
subject has attracted considerable attention.
In the result,
the courts in this country have until recently grappled
with the
problem very largely without the assistance of systematic
academic
study. At first, as is shown in particular by cases
concerned with liability for
solicitors' negligence, the courts
adopted something very like the French
solution, holding that a
claim against a solicitor for negligence must be
pursued in
contract, and not in tort (see, e.g., Bean v. Wade (1885) 2
T.L.R.
157): and in Groom v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B.
194, this approach was firmly
adopted. It has to be said, however,
that decisions such as these, though
based on prior authority,
were supported by only a slender citation of cases,
none of great
weight; and the jurisprudential basis of the doctrine so
adopted
cannot be said to have been explored in any depth.
Furthermore when, in
Bagot v. Stevens Scanlan & Co.
Ltd. [1966] 1 Q.B. 197. Diplock L.J. adopted
a similar
approach in the case of a claim against a firm of architects, he
felt
compelled to recognise (pp. 204-205) that a different
conclusion might be
reached in cases "... where the law in
the old days recognised either
something in the nature of a status
like a public calling (such as common
carrier, common innkeeper,
or a bailor and bailee) or the status of master and
servant".
To this list must be added cases concerned with claims
against
doctors and dentists. I must confess to finding it
startling that, in the second
half of the 20th century, a problem
of considerable practical importance
should fall to be solved by
reference to such an outmoded form of
categorisation as this.
I think it is
desirable to stress at this stage that the question of
concurrent
liability is by no means only of academic significance.
Practical
issues, which can be of great importance to the parties,
are at stake.
Foremost among these is perhaps the question of
limitation of actions. If
concurrent liability in tort is not
recognised, a claimant may find his claim
barred at a time when he
is unaware of its existence. This must moreover be
a real
possibility in the case of claims against professional men. such
as
solicitors or architects, since the consequences of their
negligence may well
not come to light until long after the lapse
of six years from the date when the
relevant breach of contract
occurred. Moreover the benefits of the Latent
Damage Act 1986,
under which the time of the accrual of the cause of action
may be
postponed until after the plaintiff has the relevant knowledge,
are
limited to actions in tortious negligence. This leads to the
startling possibility
that a client who has had the benefit of
gratuitous advice from his solicitor
may in this respect be better
off than a client who has paid a fee. Other
practical problems
arise, for example, from the absence of a right to
contribution
between negligent contract-breakers; from the rules as to
- 19 -
remoteness of
damage, which are less restricted in tort than they are in
contract;
and from the availability of the opportunity to obtain leave to
serve
proceedings out of the jurisdiction. It can of course be
argued that the
principle established in respect of concurrent
liability in contract and tort
should not be tailored to mitigate
the adventitious effects of rules of law such
as these, and
that one way of solving such problems would no doubt be 'to
rephrase
such incidental rules as have to remain in terms of the nature of
the
harm suffered rather than the nature of the liability
asserted' (see Tony Weir,
XI Int. Encycl. Comp. L. ch.12., para.
72). But this is perhaps crying for
the moon; and with the law in
its present form, practical considerations of
this kind cannot
sensibly be ignored.
Moreover I
myself perceive at work in these decisions not only the
influence
of the dead hand of history, but also what I have elsewhere
called
the temptation of elegance. Mr. Tony Weir (XI Int. Encycl.
Comp. L.
ch. 12., para. 55) has extolled the French
solution for its elegance; and we
can discern the same impulse
behind the much-quoted observation of Lord
Scarman when delivering
the judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in Tai
Hing Cotton Mill Ltd. v. Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd. [1986]
A.
C. 90. 107 B-D:
Their Lordships
do not believe that there is anything to the advantage
of the
law's development in searching for a liability in tort where
the
parties are in a contractual relationship. This is
particularly so in a
commercial relationship. Though it is
possible as a matter of legal
semantics to conduct an analysis of
the rights and duties inherent in
some contractual relationships
including that of banker and customer
either as a matter of
contract law when the question will be what, if
any, terms are to
be implied or as a matter of tort law when the task
will be to
identity a duty arising from the proximity and character of
the
relationship between the parties, their Lordships believe it to
be
correct in principle and necessary for the avoidance of
confusion in the
law to adhere to the contractual analysis: on
principle because it is a
relationship in which the parties have,
subject to a few exceptions, the
right to determine their
obligations to each other, and for the
avoidance of confusion
because different consequences do follow
according to whether
liability arises from contract or tort, e.g. in the
limitation of
action."
It is however
right to stress, as did Sir Thomas Bingham M.R. in the present
case,
that the issue in Tai Hing was whether a tortious duty of care
could be
established which was more extensive than that which was
provided for under
the relevant contract.
At all events,
even before Tai Hing we can see the beginning of
the
redirection of the common law away from the contractual
solution adopted in
Groom v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B.
194, towards the recognition of concurrent
remedies in contract
and tort. First, and most important, in 1963 came the
- 20 -
decision of
your Lordships' House in Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller
&
Partners Ltd., reported in [19641 A.C. 465. I have
already expressed the
opinion that the fundamental importance of
this case rests in the establishment
of the principle upon which
liability may arise in tortious negligence in respect
of services
(including advice) which are rendered for another, gratuitously
or
otherwise, but are negligently performed - viz., an assumption
of
responsibility coupled with reliance by the plaintiff which, in
all the
circumstances, makes it appropriate that a remedy in law
should be available
for such negligence. For immediate purposes,
the relevance of the principle
lies in the fact that, as a matter
of logic, it is capable of application not only
where the services
are rendered gratuitously, but also where they are rendered
under
a contract. Furthermore we can see in the principle an acceptable
basis
for liability in negligence in cases which in the past have
been seen to rest
upon the now outmoded concept of status. In this
context, it is of particular
relevance to refer to the opinion
expressed both implicitly by Lord Morris of
Borth-y-Gest (with
whom Lord Hodson agreed) and expressly by Lord Devlin
that the
principle applies to the relationship of solicitor and client, which
is
nearly always contractual: see [1964] AC 465, 497-499 (where
Lord Morris
approved the reasoning of Chitty J. in Cann v.
Willson (1888) 39 Ch.D. 39),
and p. 529 (per Lord Devlin).
The decision in
Hedley Byrne, and the statement of general principle
in
that case, provided the opportunity to reconsider the question of
concurrent
liability in contract and tort afresh, untrammelled by
the ancient learning
based upon a classification of defendants in
terms of status which drew
distinctions difficult to accept in
modern conditions. At first that opportunity
was not taken. Groom
v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194 "was followed by the
Court
of Appeal in Cook v. Swinfen [1967] 1 W.L.R. 457. and again
in
Heywood v. Wellers [1976] QB 446: though in the latter
case Lord Denning
M.R. (at p. 459) was beginning to show signs of
dissatisfaction with the
contractual test accepted in Groom v.
Crocker a dissatisfaction which
crystallised into a change of
heart in Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon
[1976] QB 801. That case was concerned with statements made by
employees
of Esso in the course of pre-contractual negotiations with
Mr.
Mardon, the prospective tenant of a petrol station. The
statements related to
the potential throughput of the station. Mr.
Mardon was persuaded by the
statements to enter into the tenancy;
but he suffered serious loss when the
actual throughput proved to
be much lower than had been predicted. The
Court of Appeal held
that Mr. Mardon was entitled to recover damages from
Esso, on the
basis of either breach of warranty or (on this point affirming
the
decision of the judge below) negligent misrepresentation. In
rejecting an
argument that Esso's liability could only be
contractual. Lord Denning M.R.
dismissed Groom v. Crocker
[ [1939] 1 K.B. 194 and Bagot v. Stevens Scanlan
Co. Ltd.
[1966] 1 Q.B. 197 as inconsistent with other decisions of
high
authority, viz. Boorman v. Brown (1842) 3 Q.B.
511. 525-526 per Tindal
C.J., and (1844) 11 Cl. & Fin. 1, 44
per Lord Campbell: Lister v. Romford
Ice and Cold Storage Co.
Ltd. [1957] AC 555, 587 per Lord Radcliffe;
- 21 -
Matthews v.
Kuwait Bechtel Corporation [1959] 2 Q.B. 57; and Nocton
v.
Lord Ashbunon [1914] AC 932, 956, per Viscount Haldane
L.C. He then
held that, in addition to its liability in contract,
Esso was also liable in
negligence. The other members of the Court
of Appeal. Ormrod and Shaw
L.JJ., agreed that Mr. Mardon was
entitled to recover damages either for
breach of warranty or for
negligent misrepresentation, though neither
expressed any view
about the status of Groom v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194.
It
was however implicit in their decision that, as Lord Denning
held,
concurrent remedies were available to Mr. Mardon in contract
and tort. For
present purposes, I do not find it necessary to
comment on the authorities
relied upon by Lord Denning as
relieving him from the obligation to follow
Groom v. Crocker,
though I feel driven to comment that the judgments in
Esso
Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976] QB 801 reveal no analysis
in
depth of the basis upon which concurrent liability rests. That
case was
however followed by the Court of Appeal in Batty v.
Metropolitan Property
Realisations Ltd. [1978] Q.B. 554, in
which concurrent remedies in contract
and tort were again allowed.
The requisite
analysis is however to be found in the judgment of Oliver
J. in
Midland Bank Trust Co. Ltd. v. Hett, Stubbs & Kemp [1979]
Ch. 384.
in which he held that a solicitor could be liable to his
client for negligence
either in contract or in tort, with the
effect that in the case before him it was
open to the client to
take advantage of the more favourable date of accrual of
the cause
of action for the purposes of limitation. In that case, Oliver J.
was
much concerned with the question whether it was open to him,
as a judge of
first instance, to depart from the decision of the
Court of Appeal in Groom v.
Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194. For
that purpose, he carried out a most careful
examination of the
relevant authorities, both before and after Groom r.
Crocker,
and concluded that he was free to depart from the decision in
that
case, which he elected to do.
It is
impossible for me to do justice to the reasoning of Oliver J..
for
which I wish to express my respectful admiration, without
unduly prolonging
what is inevitably a very long opinion. I shall
therefore confine myself to
extracting certain salient features.
First, from his study of the cases before
Groom v. Crocker, he
found no unanimity of view that the solicitor's liability
was
regarded as exclusively contractual. Some cases (such as Howell
v.
Young (1826) 5 B.& C. 259) he regarded as
equivocal. In others, he
understood the judges to regard contract
and tort as providing alternative
causes of action (see In re
Manby and Hawksford (1856) 26 L.J.Ch. 313, 317,
and Sawyer
v. Goodwin (1867) 36 L.J.Ch. 578, 582, in both cases per
Stuart
V.-C., and most notably Nocton v. Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932, 956.
per Viscount Haldane L.C.). However Bean v. Wade
(1885) 2 T.L.R. 157,
briefly reported in the Times Law Reports
and by no means extensively
referred to, provided Court of Appeal
authority that the remedy was
exclusively contractual; and it was
that case which was principally relied
upon by the Court of Appeal
in Groom v. Crocker [1939] 1 K.B. 194 when
- 22 -
reaching the
same conclusion. Oliver J. put on one side those cases, decided
for
the purpose of section 11 of the County Courts Act 1915. under which
a
different statutory test had to be complied with, viz. whether
the action was
one "founded on a contract" or "founded
on a tort".
It is evident
that the early authorities did not play a very significant
part in
Oliver J.'s decision (see [1979] Ch. 384, 411 C-D). He
loyally
regarded Groom v. Crocker as prima facie
binding upon him. His main
concern was with the impact of the
decision of this House in Hedley Byrne
[1964] AC 465, and
of subsequent cases in the Court of Appeal in which
Hedley
Byrne had been applied. As he read the speeches in Hedley
Byrne, the
principle there stated was not limited to
circumstances in which the
responsibility of the defendant had
been gratuitously assumed. He referred in
particular to the
statement of principle by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest at pp.
502-503.
which I have already quoted, and said, at p. 411 E-F:
"The
principle was stated by Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest as a
perfectly
general one and it is difficult to see why it should be
excluded
by the fact that the relationship of dependence and reliance
between
the parties is a contractual one rather than one
gratuitously
assumed, in the absence, of course, of contractual
terms excluding or
restricting the general duties which the law
implies."
Oliver J. went
on (p. 412) to quote from the dissenting judgment of Denning
L.J.
in Candler v. Crane Christmas & Co. [1951] 1 K.B. 164.
179-180 (a
passage approved by Lord Pearce in Hedley Byrne
[1964] AC 465. 538) and
said, at p. 413 B-D:
"Now, in
that passage, I think that it is abundantly clear that
Denning
L.J. was seeking to enunciate a general principle of
liability
arising from the relationship created by the assumption
of a particular
work or responsibility, quite regardless of how
the relationship arose
. . .
"The
inquiry upon which the court is to embark is 'what is
the
relationship between the plaintiff and defendant?' not 'how
did the
relationship, if any, arise' That this is so appears. I
think, with
complete clarity from subsequent cases."
Later he said, at p. 415:
"The
matter becomes, in my judgment, even clearer when one looks
at the
speech of Lord Devlin in the Hedley Byrne case [1964]
A.C.
465, for he treats the existence of a contractual
relationship as very
good evidence of the general tortious duty
which he is there
discussing. He said, at pp. 528-529:
- 23 -
'I think,
therefore, that there is ample authority to justify your
Lordships
in saying now that the categories of special
relationships which
may give rise to a duty to take care in word
as well as in deed
are not limited to contractual relationships or
to relationships
of fiduciary duty, but include also relationships
which in the
words of Lord Shaw in Nocton v. Lord Ashburton
[1914] AC 932, 972, are 'equivalent to contract', that is,
where there is an
assumption of responsibility in circumstances
in which, but for
the absence of consideration, there would be
a contract . . .'
He expressed
his conclusion concerning the impact of Hedley Byrne on
the
case before him in the following words, at p. 417 A-C:
The case of a
layman consulting a solicitor for advice seems to me to
be as
typical a case as one could find of the sort of relationship in
which
the duty of care described in the Hedley Byrne case [1964]
A.C.
465 exists: and if I am free to do so in the instant case. I
would,
therefore, hold that the relationship of solicitor and
client gave rise to
a duty in the defendants under the general law
to exercise that care and
skill upon which they must have known
perfectly well that their client
relied. To put it another way,
their common law duty was not to
injure their client by tailing to
do that which they had undertaken to
do and which, at their
invitation, he relied upon them to do. That duty
was broken, but
no cause of action in tort arose until the damage
occurred; and
none did occur until August 17. 1967. I would regard
it as wholly
immaterial that their duty arose because they accepted a
retainer
which entitled them, if they chose to do so. to send a bill to
their
client."
I wish to
express my respectful agreement with these passages in Oliver
J.'s
judgment.
Thereafter,
Oliver J. proceeded to consider the authorities since Hedley
Byrne.
in which he found, notably in statements of the law by members of
the
Appellate Committee in Arenson v. Arenson [1977]
A.C. 405 and in the
decision of the Court of Appeal in Esso
Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. Mardon [1976]
Q. B. 801, the authority
which relieved him of his duty to follow Groom v.
Crocker
[1939] 1 K.B. 194. But I wish to add that, in the course
of
considering the later authorities, he rejected the idea that
there is some general
principle of law that a plaintiff who has
claims against a defendant for breach
of duty both in contract and
in tort is bound to rely upon his contractual rights
alone. He
said, at p. 420 A-B:
"There is
not and never has been any rule of law that a person
having
alternative claims must frame his action in one or the
other. If I have
a contract with my dentist to extract a tooth, I
am not thereby
- 24 -
precluded from
suing him in tort if he negligently shatters my jaw:
Edwards v.
Mallan [1908] 1 KB 1002."
The origin of
concurrent remedies in this type of case may lie in history; but
in
a modern context the point is a telling one. Indeed it is consistent
with the
decision in Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] AC 562
itself, and the rejection
in that case of the view, powerfully
expressed in the speech of Lord
Buckmaster (see, in particular,
pp. 577-578), that the manufacturer or repairer
of an article owes
no duty of care apart from that implied from contract or
imposed
by statute. That there might be co-existent remedies for
negligence
in contract and in tort was expressly recognised by
Lord Macmillan in
Donoghue v. Stevenson, at p. 610, and by
Lord Wright in Grant v. Australian
Knitting Mills Ltd., [1936] AC 85, 102-104. Attempts have been made to
explain how doctors
and dentists may be concurrently liable in tort while
other
professional men may not be so liable, on the basis that the
former cause
physical damage whereas the latter cause pure
economic loss (see the
discussion by Christine French in (1983) 5
Otago L.R. 236, 280-1). But this
explanation is not acceptable, if
only because some professional men. such as
architects, may also
be responsible for physical damage. As a matter of
principle, it
is difficult to see why concurrent remedies in tort and contract,
if
available against the medical profession, should not also be
available against
members of other professions, whatever form the
relevant damage may take.
The judgment of
Oliver J. in the Midland Bank Trust Co. case [1979]
Ch. 384
provided the first analysis in depth of the question of
concurrent
liability in tort and contract. Following upon Esso
Petroleum Co. Ltd. v.
Mardon [1976] QB 801, it also
broke the mould, fn the sense that it
undermined the view which
was becoming settled that, where there is an
alternative liability
in tort, the claimant must pursue his remedy in contract
alone.
The development of the case law in other common law countries is
very
striking. In the same year as the Midland Bank Trust Co. case,
the Irish
Supreme Court held that solicitors owed to their clients
concurrent duties in
contract and tort: see Finlay v. Murtagh
[1979] I.R. 249. Next, in Central
Trust Co. v. Rafuse
(1986) 31 D.L.R. 4th 481, Le Dain J., delivering the
judgment
of the Supreme Court of Canada, conducted a comprehensive and
most
impressive survey of the relevant English and Canadian authorities
on
the liability of solicitors to their clients for negligence, in
contract and in tort,
in the course of which he paid a generous
tribute to the analysis of Oliver J.
in the Midland Bank Trust
Co. case. His conclusions are set out in a series
of
propositions at pp. 521-2 of the report: but his general conclusion
was to
the same effect as that reached by Oliver J. He said, at p.
522:
". . .A
concurrent or alternative liability in tort will not be
admitted
if its effect would be to permit the plaintiff to
circumvent or
escape a contractual exclusion or limitation of
liability for the
act or omission that would constitute the tort.
Subject to this
qualification, where concurrent liability in tort
- 25 -
and contract
exists the plaintiff has the right to assert the cause
of action
that appears to be the most advantageous to him in
respect of any
particular legal consequence."
I respectfully agree.
Meanwhile in
New Zealand the Court of Appeal had appeared at first,
in McLaren
Maycroft & Co. v. Fletcher Development Co. Ltd. [1973]
2
N.Z.L.R. 100. to require that, in cases where there are
concurrent duties in
contract and tort, the claimant must pursue
his remedy in contract alone.
There followed a period of some
uncertainty, in which differing approaches
were adopted by courts
of first instance. In 1983 Miss Christine French
published her
Article on the Contract/Tort Dilemma in (1981-84) 5 Otago
L.R.
236. in which she examined the whole problem in great depth,
with
special reference to the situation in New Zealand, having
regard to the "Rule"
in McLaren Maycroft. Her
Article, to which I wish to pay tribute, was of
course published
before the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the
Central
Trust case. Even so. she reached a conclusion which, on
balance.
favoured a freedom for the claimant to choose between
concurrent remedies
in contract and tort. Thereafter in Rowlands
v. Collow [1992] 1 N.Z.L.R.
178 Thomas J., founding
himself principally on the Central Trust case and on
Miss
French's Article, concluded that he was free to depart from the
decision
of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in McLaren Maycroft
and to hold that
a person performing professional services (in
the case before him an engineer)
may be sued for negligence by his
client either in contract or in tort. He said.
at p. 190:
" The
issue is now virtually incontestable; a person who has
performed
professional services may be held liable concurrently in
contract and
in negligence, unless the terms of the contract
preclude the tortious
liability."
In Australia,
too, judicial opinion appears to be moving in the same
direction.
though not without dissent: see, in particular.
Aluminum Products (Qld.) Pty.
Ltd. v. Hill [1981] Qd.R. 33
(a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme
Court of Queensland)
and Macpherson & Kelley v. Kevin J. Prunty &
Associates
[1983] 1 V.R. 573 (a decision of the Full Court of the
Supreme
Court of Victoria). A different view has however been
expressed by Deane
J in Hawkins v. Clayton (1987-88) 164
C.L.P. 539. 585. to which I will
return later. In principle,
concurrent remedies appear to have been accepted
for some time in
the United States (see Prosser's Handbook on the Law of
Torts. 5th
ed. (1984) p. 666), though with some variation as to the
application
of the principle in particular cases. In these
circumstances it comes as no
surprise that Professor Fleming,
writing in 1992, should state that "the last ten
years have
seen a decisive return to the 'concurrent' approach" (see his
Law
of Torts, 8th ed., p. 187).
- 26 -
I have dealt
with the matter at some length because, before your
Lordships, Mr.
Temple Q.C., for the managing agents, boldly challenged the
decision
of Oliver J. in the Midland Bank Trust Co. case [1979] Ch.
384,
seeking to persuade your Lordships that this House should
now- hold that case
to have been wrongly decided- This argument
was apparently not advanced
below, presumably because Oliver J.'s
analysis had received a measure of
approval in the Court of
Appeal: see, e.g., Forster v. Outred & Co. [1982]
1
W.L.R. 86, 99, per Dunn L.J. Certainly there has been no sign
of
disapproval, even where the Midland Bank Trust Co. case
has been
distinguished: see Bell v. Peter Browne &
Co. [1990] 2 Q.B. 495.
Mr. Temple
adopted as part of his argument the reasoning of Mr. J.M.
Kaye in
an article The Liability of Solicitors in Tort (1984) 100
L.Q.R. 680.
In his article, Mr. Kaye strongly criticised the
reasoning of Oliver J. both on
historical grounds and with regard
to his interpretation of the speeches in
Hedley Byrne. However,
powerful though Mr. Kaye's article is, I am not
persuaded by it to
treat the Midland Bank Trust Co. case as wrongly
decided.
First, so far as the historical approach is concerned,
this is no longer of direct
relevance in a case such as the
present, having regard to the development of
the general principle
in Hedley Byrne. No doubt it is correct that, in the
19th
century, liability in tort depended upon the category of
persons into which the
defendant fell, with the result that in
those days it did not necessarily follow
that, because (for
example) a surgeon owed an independent duty of care to his
patient
in tort irrespective of contract, other professional men were under
a
similar duty. Even so, as Mr. Boswood Q.C. for the Names
stressed, if the
existence of a contract between a surgeon and his
patient did not preclude the
existence of a tortious duty to the
patient in negligence 'there is no reason in
principle why a
tortious duty should not co-exist with a contractual duty in the
case
of the broad duty of care now recognised following the generalisation
of
the tort of negligence in the 20th century.
So far as
Hedley Byrne itself is concerned. Mr. Kaye reads the
speeches
as restricting the principle of assumption of responsibility
there
established to cases where there is no contract; indeed, on
this he tolerates
no dissent, stating (at p. 706) that "unless
one reads [Hedley Byrne\ with
deliberate intent to find
obscure or ambiguous passages" it will not bear
the
interpretation favoured by Oliver J. I must confess however
that, having
studied yet again the speeches in Hedley Byrne
[1964] AC 465 in the light
of Mr. Kaye's critique, I remain
of the opinion that Oliver J.'s reading of
them is justified. It
is, I suspect, a matter of the angle of vision with which
they are
read. For here, I consider, Oliver J. was influenced not only by
what
he read in the speeches themselves, notably the passage from
Lord
Devlin's speech at pp. 528-529 (quoted above), but also by
the internal logic
reflected in that passage, which led inexorably
to the conclusion which he
drew Mr. Kaye's approach involves
regarding the law of tort as
supplementary to the law of contract,
i.e. as providing for a tortious liability
in cases where there is
no contract. Yet the law of tort is the general law, out
- 27 -
of which the
parties can, if they wish, contract: and, as Oliver J.
demonstrated,
the same assumption of responsibility may, and frequently does,
occur
in a contractual context. Approached as a matter of
principle,
therefore, it is right to attribute to that assumption
of responsibility, together
with its concomitant reliance, a
tortious liability, and then to enquire whether
or not that
liability is excluded by the contract because the latter
is
inconsistent with it. This is the reasoning which Oliver J., as
I understand it,
found implicit, where not explicit, in the
speeches in Hedley Byrne. With his
conclusion I
respectfully agree. But even if I am wrong in this, I am of
the
opinion that this House should now, if necessary, develop the
principle of
assumption of responsibility as stated in Hedley
Byrne to its logical conclusion
so as to make it clear that a
tortious duty of care may arise not only in cases
where the
relevant services are rendered gratuitously, but also where they
are
rendered under a contract. This indeed is the view expressed
by my noble
and learned friend Lord Keith of Kinkel in Murphy
v. Brentwood District
Council [1991] 1 AC 398, 466,
in a speech with which all the other
members or the Appellate
Committee agreed.
An alternative approach, which also avoids the concurrence of tortious
and contractual
remedies, is to be found in the judgment of Deane J. in
Hawkins
v. Clayton (1987-88) 164 C.L.R. 539. 582-586. in which he
included, at p. 585:
On balance,
however, it seems to me to be preferable to accept that
there is
neither justification nor need for the implication of a
contractual
term which, in the absence of actual intention of the
parties,
imposes upon a solicitor a contractual duty (with
consequential
liability in damages for its breach) which is
co-extensive in content and
concurrent in operation with a duty
(with consequential liability in
damages for us breach) which
already exists under the common law of
negligence."
It is however
my understanding that by the law in this country contracts
for
services do contain an implied promise to exercise reasonable
care (and skill)
in the performance of the relevant services;
indeed, as Mr. Tony Weir has
pointed out (XI Int. Encycl. Comp.
L., ch. 12, para. 67), in the 19th century
the field of concurrent
liabilities was expanded "since it was impossible for the
judges
to deny that contracts contained an implied promise to take
reasonable
care, at the least, not to injure the other party".
My own belief is that, in the
present context, the common law is
not antipathetic to concurrent liability, and
that there is no
sound basis for a rule which automatically restricts the
claimant
to either a tortious or a contractual remedy. The result may
be
untidy: but, given that the tortious duty is imposed by the
general law, and
the contractual duty is attributable to the will
of the parties, I do not find it
objectionable that the claimant
may be entitled to take advantage of the
remedy which is most
advantageous to him, subject only to ascertaining
whether the
tortious duty is so inconsistent with the applicable contract that,
- 28 -
in accordance
with ordinary principle, the parties must be taken to have
agreed
that the tortious remedy is to be limited or excluded.
In the
circumstances of the present case, I have nor regarded it
as
necessary or appropriate to embark upon yet another detailed
analysis of the
case law, choosing rather to concentrate on those
authorities which appear to
me to be here most important. I have
been most anxious not to overburden
an inevitably lengthy opinion
with a discussion of an issue which is only one
(though an
important one) of those which fall for decision; and, in the
context
of the relationship of solicitor and client, the task of
surveying the authorities
has already been admirably performed by
both Oliver J. and Le Dain J. But,
for the present purposes more
important, in the present case liability can, and
in my opinion
should, be founded squarely on the principle established in
Hedley
Byrne itself, from which it follows that an assumption of
responsibility
coupled with the concomitant reliance may give rise
to a tortious duty of care
irrespective of whether there is a
contractual relationship between the parties,
and in consequence,
unless his contract precludes him from doing so, the
plaintiff,
who has available to him concurrent remedies in contract and
tort,
may choose that remedy which appears to him to be the most
advantageous.
(7) Application of the above principles in the present case
I have already
concluded that prima facie a duty of care was owed in
tort on
the Hedley Byrne principle by managing agents both to
direct Names
and indirect Names. So far as the direct Names are
concerned, there is
plainly a contract between them and the
managing agents, in the terms of the
pre-1985 Byelaw form of
agency agreement, in which a term falls to be
implied that the
agents will exercise due care and skill in the exercise of
their
functions as managing agents under the agreement. That duty
of care is no
different from the duty of care owed by them to the
relevant Names in tort:
and, having regard to the principles
already stated, the contract does not
operate to exclude the
tortious duty, leaving it open to the Names to pursue
either
remedy against the agents.
I turn to the
indirect Names. Here there is, as I see it, no material
distinction
between the claims of the Names in the Merrett actions, and those
of
the Names in the Feltrim actions. True, the former arise in the
context of
the pre-1985 Byelaw forms of agency and sub-agency
agreements, whereas the
latter arise in the context of the forms
of agreement prescribed by the 1985
Byelaw. However in both cases
there must be implied into the sub-agency
agreements a duty upon
the managing agents to exercise due skill and care.
A similar
responsibility must rest upon the members' agents under the
1985
Byelaw form of agency agreement, and I will assume that the
same applies
under the pre-1985 Byelaw form (though the point does
not arise for decision
by your Lordships). In neither case,
however, is there any material difference
between the relevant
contractual duty and any duty which is owed by the
managing agents
to the relevant Names in tort. It is however submitted on
behalf
of the managing agents that the indirect Names and the managing
- 29 -
agents, as
parties to the chain of contracts contained in the relevant
agency
and sub-agency agreements, must be taken to have thereby
structured their
relationship so as to exclude any duty of care
owed directly by the managing
agents to the indirect Names in
tort.
In essence the
argument must be that, because the managing agents
have, with the
consent of the indirect Names, assumed responsibility in
respect
of the relevant activities to another party, i.e. the members'
agents,
under a sub-agency agreement, it would be inconsistent to
hold that they have
also assumed responsibility in respect of the
same activities to the indirect
Names. I for my part cannot see
why in principle a party should not assume
responsibility to more
than one person in respect of the same activity. Let it
be assumed
(unlikely though it may be) that, in the present case, the
managing
agents were in a contractual relationship not only with
the members' agents
under a sub-agency agreement but also directly
with the relevant Names,
under both of which they assumed
responsibility for the same activities. I can
see no reason in
principle why the two duties of care so arising should not be
capable
of co-existing.
Of course I
recognise that the present case presents the unusual feature
that
claims against the managing agents, whether by the members'
agents
under the sub-agency agreement or by the indirect Names in
tort, will in both
cases have the purpose, immediate or ultimate,
of obtaining compensation for
the indirect Names. In these
circumstances, concurrent duties of care
could,
in theory at least, give rise to problems, for example in
the event of the
insolvency of the managing agents or the members'
agents. Furthermore, as
Mr. Temple Q.C. suggested in the course of
his submissions on behalf of the
managing agents, questions of
contribution might, at least in theory, arise.
But your Lordships'
task, like that of the courts below, is to answer the
questions of
principle raised by the issues presented for decision: and in
these
circumstances it would be quite wrong to embark upon the
examination of
questions which do not
arise on those issues, and indeed may never arise in
practice.
For myself, I am all the more reluctant to do so since, because
the
liability (if any) of the managing agents will in each case
flow from claims by
the indirect Names, it may well be that
practical problems such as these will,
it they arise, find a
practical solution.
I wish however
to add that I strongly suspect that the situation which
arises in
the present case is most unusual; and that in many cases in which
a
contractual chain comparable to that in the present case is
constructed it may
well prove to be inconsistent with an
assumption of responsibility which has
the effect of. so to speak,
short circuiting the contractual structure so put in
place by the
parties. It cannot therefore be inferred from the present case
that
other sub-agents will be held directly liable to the agent's
principal in tort.
Let me take the analogy of the common case of
an ordinary building contract,
under which main contractors
contract with the building owner for the
construction of the
relevant building, and the main contractor sub-contracts
with
sub-contractors or suppliers (often nominated by the building owner)
for
- 30 -
the performance
of work or the supply of materials in accordance with
standards
and subject to terms established in the sub-contract. I put on
one
side cases in which the sub-contractor causes physical damage
to property of
the building owner, where the claim does not depend
on an -assumption of
responsibility by the sub-contractor to the
building owner; though the sub-
contractor may be protected from
liability by a contractual exemption clause
authorised by the
building owner. But if the sub-contracted work or materials
do not
in the result conform to the required standard, it will not
ordinarily be
open to the building owner to sue the sub-contractor
or supplier direct under
the Medley Byrne principle,
claiming damages from him on the basis that he
has been negligent
in relation to the performance of his functions. For there
is
generally no assumption of responsibility by the sub-contractor or
supplier
direct to the building owner, the parties having so
structured their relationship
that it is inconsistent with any
such assumption of responsibility. This was the
conclusion of the
Court of Appeal in Simaan General Contracting Co. v.
Pilkington
Glass Ltd. (No. 2) [1988] QB 758. As Bingham L.J. put it, at
p.
781:
"I do not,
however, see any basis on which the defendants [the
nominated
suppliers] could be said to have assumed a direct
responsibility
for the quality of the goods to the plaintiffs [the building
owners);
such a responsibility is, I think, inconsistent with the
structure
of the contract the parties have chosen to make."
It is true
that, in this connection, some difficulty has been created by
the
decision of your Lordships' House in Junior Books Ltd. v.
Veitchi Co. Ltd.
[1983] 1 AC 520. In my opinion, however,
it is unnecessary for your
Lordships to reconsider that decision
for the purposes of the present appeal.
Here however I can see no
inconsistency between the assumption of
responsibility by the
managing agents to the indirect Names, and that which
arises under
the sub-agency agreement between the managing agents and the
members'
agents, whether viewed in isolation or as part of the
contractual
chain stretching back to and so including the indirect
Names. For these
reasons, I can see no reason why the indirect
Names should not be free to
pursue their remedy against the
managing agents in tort under the Medley
Byrne principle.
I Merrett and Feltrim Appeals
B. Fiduciary Duty
The question
arising under this issue is whether Merretts acting as
managing
agents (whether or not they are also members' agents) owed the
Names
a fiduciary duty to conduct the underwriting for the account of
the
Names with reasonable skill for the 1979 to 1985 underwriting
years of
account (inclusive) equivalent to the alleged duty of
care in tort.
- 31 -
Both Saville J.
and the Court of Appeal declined to address this
question since
having regard to the manner in which they decided the issue on
the
tortious duty of care, the question did not arise. Having regard to
the
conclusion which I have reached on the tortious duty, I
likewise do not think
it necessary for your Lordships' House to
address the question of fiduciary
duty.
II. Feltrim and Gooda Walker Appeals
Liability of members' agents to Names during the period 1987-1989
Saville J. held
that this issue should be decided against the members'
agents, and
his decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeal, for the
same
reasons. As a result it was held that, under agency
agreements in the form
prescribed by Lloyd's Byelaw No. 1 of 1985,
members' agents are responsible
to the Names for any failure to
exercise reasonable skill and care on the part
of managing agents
to whom underwriting has been delegated by the
members agents; and
that the members agents are not required to exercise
skill and
care only in relation to those activities and functions which
members'
agents by custom and practice actually perform for the
Names personally.
This issue
raises a question of construction of the prescribed form of
agency
agreement. Since however the prescribed forms of agency and
sub-
agency agreements together constitute the contractual regime
established by
the Byelaw, it follows that the agency agreement
should not be considered in
isolation, but as forming,
together with the sub-agency agreement, a coherent
whole which, in
a case concerned with indirect Names, regulates the
contractual
relationship between Name, members' agent and managing
agent.
Furthermore it is not to be forgotten that, in a case
concerned with a
combined agent, the agency agreement may fulfil
the dual function of
regulating the functions of the combined
agent both in its role as members
agent, and in its role as
managing agent in respect of any Syndicate under its
management of
which the Name is a member.
In order to
consider this question of construction I think it desirable
that I
should, like Sir Thomas Bingham M.R., first set out the terms of
the
most relevant provisions of the prescribed forms of agency and
sub-agency
agreements. These are as follows.
AGENCY AGREEMENT
1. DEFINITIONS:
In this
agreement the under mentioned expressions shall
where the context
so requires or admits have the following meanings:-
- 32 -
(a) The
expression 'the Syndicate' shall mean the
syndicate or, if more
than one, each of the respective syndicates of
which the Name is
for the time being a member under the provisions
of this
agreement, being the syndicate or syndicates specified in
the
Schedule(s) attached hereto ....
2.
APPOINTMENT OF THE NAME'S AGENT AT
LLOYD'S:
The agent shall act as the
underwriting agent for
the Name for the purpose of underwriting
at Lloyd's for the account
of the Name such classes and
descriptions of insurance business, other
than those prohibited
by the Council, as may be transacted by the
Syndicate
(hereinafter referred to as 'the underwriting business').
In acting as underwriting agent
for the Name the
Agent shall at all times comply with the
byelaws, regulations and
requirements for the time being of the
Council affecting the Name as
an underwriting member of Lloyd's.
Provided that if and to the extent
that any provision of this
Agreement shall be inconsistent with any
such byelaw, regulation
or requirement such inconsistent provision
shall be deemed to
be modified or cancelled so far as may be
necessary or
appropriate to the intent that the byelaw, regulation or
requirement
in question shall prevail and have full effect.
. . .
4 POWERS OF THE AGENT
(a) The
agent is authorised .... to exercise such
powers as the agent may
consider to be necessary or desirable in
connection with or
arising out of the underwriting business, including
without
prejudice to the generality of the foregoing:
(i) the
acceptance of risks and the effecting
of reinsurance, including
reinsurance for the purpose of clause 5(g)
hereof;
. . . .
(b) Without prejudice to the generality of the
provisions of sub-clause (a) of this clause, the agent shall have the
following
customary and/or special powers in connection with the
conduct and
winding-up of the underwriting business:
. . . .
(G)
Delegation of agent's powers:
- 33 -
Power, subject
to any requirements of the
Council, to appoint or employ any
person, firm or body corporate to
carry on or manage the
underwriting business or any part thereof, and
to delegate to or
confer upon any person, firm or body corporate all
or any of the
powers, authorities and discretions given to the agent by
this
agreement including this power of delegation and the other
powers
contained in this paragraph.
5. CONTROL OF UNDERWRITING BUSINESS:
(a) The agent
shall have the sole control and
management of the underwriting
business and the Name shall not in
any way interfere with the
exercise of such control or management.
. . . .
(g) In
order to close the underwriting account of any
year the agent may:
(i) reinsure
all or any outstanding liabilities
in such manner as the agent
shall think fit, including the debiting of
such account and the
crediting of the underwriting account of the next
succeeding year
with such reinsurance premium as the Agent in its
absolute
discretion (subject to any requirements of the Council) thinks
fair
or
(ii) reinsure
all or any outstanding liabilities
into the underwriting account
of any other year then remaining open
or in any other manner which
the agent (subject as aforesaid) thinks
fair.
. . . .
8. REMUNERATION:
(a) The Name
shall pay to the agent as remuneration for
the services of the
agent a fee at the rate per annum specified in the
Syndicate
Schedule.
. . . .
9. UNDERTAKING BY THE NAME TO PAY ALL
LIABILITIES AND OUTGOINGS:
(a) The Name
shall keep the agent at all times in
funds available for the
payment of the liabilities, expenses and
outgoings of the
underwriting business . . . ."
- 34 -
"SUB-AGENCY AGREEMENT
W H E R E A S
the agent is the underwriting agent at
Lloyd's for certain
underwriting members of Lloyd's and it has been
arranged between
the agent and the sub-agent that the sub-agent shall
act as the
sub-underwriting agent for one or more of such underwriting
members
upon the terms hereinafter mentioned.
NOW IT IS
HEREBY AGREED AND DECLARED between
the parties hereto as follows
:-
. . . . .
The sub-agent shall act as
sub-agent for the agent for the
purpose of conducting in the
names and for the account of each of the
agent's Names that part
of the underwriting business as defined in
clause 2(a) of the
agency agreement which is to be transacted by such
Name as a
member of the Syndicate (hereinafter called 'the
Syndicate
underwriting business'); ....
(a) The sub-agent shall
underwrite for the agent's
Names as part of the Syndicate ....
(b) The
individual premium income limit to be
allocated to the Syndicate
in respect of each of the agent's Names shall
be agreed from time
to time between the sub-agent and the agent . .
. .
5. (a) The
agent delegates to the sub-agent the
performance of all such
duties and the exercise of all such powers,
authorities and
discretions imposed or conferred upon the agent by the
agency
agreement (including without prejudice to the generality of
the
foregoing the power of delegation contained in that agreement)
as it
may be appropriate or necessary for the sub-agent to perform
or
exercise for the purpose of carrying on the Syndicate
underwriting
business.
. . . .
7. (a) The
sub-agent shall conduct the Syndicate
underwriting business in
such manner as to comply with the provisions
of the agency
agreement and Lloyd's byelaws and regulations and is
to have
regard for Lloyd's Codes of Conduct or similar forms of
guidance
for the Lloyd's market.
. . . .
- 35 -
12. (a) The
agent undertakes to put and keep the sub-agent
in funds to such
extent as the sub-agent shall in its sole discretion
determine for
payment of all liabilities, expenses and outgoings from
time to
time payable in connection with the Syndicate underwriting
business
but (subject to any supplementary provision) only to the
extent
that the agent shall be able to enforce against a Name the
provisions
of the agency agreement.
. . . . "
The rival
contentions of the parties centred upon the construction to be
placed
upon clause 2(a) of the agency agreement. For the Names in
the
Feltrim actions, it was submitted by Mr. Boswood Q.C. that
clause 2(a)
contains an express undertaking by the underwriting
agent to act as the
underwriting agent of the Name, with the
effect that (except to the extent that,
where the agent is a
combined agent, it acts as managing agent of a Syndicate
of which
the Name is a member) members' agents are as such bound to
underwrite
insurance business for the Name. It was conceded that, if
that
submission was correct, there was an implied term that such
underwriting
should be carried out with reasonable care and skill.
Mr. Boswood's
argument on this point was supported by Mr. Vos Q.C.
for the Names in the
Gooda Walker actions.
This argument
was accepted by the courts below. But before the
Appellate
Committee it was subjected to a powerful attack by Mr. Eder Q C
for
the Gooda Walker members' agents, supported by Mr. Rowland for
the
Feltrim members agents. The argument ran as follows:
(1) Mr. Eder
began with clause 2(a) of the agency agreement, under which
it is
provided that the agent shall act as 'underwriting agent' for the
Name.
He then drew upon the definitions of 'underwriting agent' in
Byelaw No. 4 of
1984, and in paragraph l(c) of the Interpretation
Byelaw No. 1 of 1983 (as
amended), as showing that an underwriting
agent may be either a member's
agent or a managing agent, and
submitted that appointment under clause 2(a)
as underwriting
agent' did not of itself indicate in which capacity the agent
was
agreeing to act.
(2) Next
he turned to clause 2(b). Here again he invoked Byelaw No. 4
of
1984, and the definitions in Part A of both 'managing agent'
and
members agent' which show (1) that a managing agent performs
for an
underwriting member the function of (inter alia)
underwriting contracts of
insurance at Lloyd's and (2) that a
members' agent does not perform any of
the functions of a managing
agent. Further, under paragraph 4(a) of Part B
of the Byelaw,
there is a prohibition against any person acting as a managing
agent
who is not registered as such under the Byelaw. Building on
this
prohibition, Mr. Eder developed an argument to the effect
that, on a true
construction of clause 2(a), members' agents could
not as such have agreed
- 36 -
to do
underwriting on behalf of the Names, when that was a
prohibited
activity under the relevant Lloyd's legislation.
(3) Turning to
clause 4 of the agency agreement, he stressed that the
clause is
concerned not with duties but with powers conferred upon the
agent,
specifying powers the exercise of which the agent may
consider to be
'necessary or desirable'. It followed from the
fact that a member's agent is
prohibited from acting as a managing
agent that the exercise, in particular, of
the power to accept
risks and effect reinsurances could not properly be
regarded as
necessary or desirable for a members' agent. Furthermore,
clause
4(b)(G) falls into two parts, the former being concerned
with a power to
appoint another person to carry on or manage the
underwriting business, and
the latter with a power to delegate or
confer upon another the powers, etc.,
given to the agent. It was
the submission of Mr. Eder that the effect of this
sub-clause was,
first, that the members' agent can appoint a managing agent
to
carry on the actual underwriting for the Name, even though the
members'
agent has itself no power to do so; and that the
delegation of the broad
authority conferred by clause 4(a) on the
members' agent would have the
effect of authorising the managing
agent to underwrite on the Name's behalf.
In his submission,
clause 4(b)(G) envisaged that the person so appointed
would be
acting directly on behalf of the Name.
(4) There was
nothing in the agency agreement, and in particular nothing
in
clause 5, to indicate that the members' agents contracted to
underwrite or
to be responsible for the underwriting in the sense
advanced by the Names.
Impressed though I was by Mr. Eder's argument, in the end I feel
unable to accept it.
I start, like
him, with clause 2(a). This is the central provision, which
makes
available to Names the opportunity of participating in underwriting
at
Lloyd's. Consistently with that evident object, it does not
merely appoint the
agent as "the underwriting agent" for
the Name, but does so "for the purpose
of underwriting at
Lloyd's for the account of the Name such classes and
descriptions
of insurance business .... as may be transacted by the
Syndicate
(hereinafter referred to as 'the underwriting
business')." Next. I have in the
forefront of my mind the
fact that, as I have already pointed out, the agency
agreement is
designed to enable it to perform a dual purpose so that it may
apply
not only to the functions of a members' agent as such, but also to
the
functions performed by a combined agent when it acts as
managing agent in
respect of a Syndicate of which the Name is a
member. I have a feeling that
this duality of function may lie at
the root of the somewhat elliptical language
in which clause 2(a)
is expressed. However it follows in my opinion that
appointment of
the agent as underwriting agent under clause 2(a) must, in the
case
of a combined agent, impose upon it the duty of carrying
out
underwriting on behalf of the Name if entered as a member of a
syndicate of
which the agent is the managing agent. Furthermore, I
find it very difficult
to see how the same words in clause 2(a)
can impose any different obligation
- 37 -
on the members'
agent when the relevant Syndicate is not managed by it,
either
because it is a pure members' agent, or because the Syndicate
in
question is managed by some other managing agent. Here, I draw
attention
to the definition of 'the Syndicate' in clause l(a) of
the agency agreement,
under which no distinction is drawn in this
context between Syndicates
managed by a combined agent in its
capacity as managing agent, and
Syndicates managed by some other
managing agent, in which the Name is
entered as member pursuant to
a sub-agency agreement with the members'
agent.
That the same
obligation is in such circumstances imposed on the
members' agent
is, in my opinion, made clear beyond doubt when we read the
agency
agreement together with the sub-agency agreement, and discover
from
clause 2 of the latter that the managing agent acts as
sub-agent for the
members' agent in conducting the relevant part
of the underwriting business
as defined in clause 2(a) of the
agency agreement. The position under clause
2(a) is therefore that
the obligation imposed on the members' agent under the
clause with
regard to underwriting is the same, whether it is acting as
members
agent or is a combined agent acting as managing agent in respect
of
a Syndicate of which the Name is a member. The only difference is
that
in the former case it carries out the underwriting through
the agency of a
managing agent, under the terms of the prescribed
form of sub-agency
agreement, whereas in the latter case it
carries it out itself.
Furthermore,
like Saville J., I cannot see that such performance of
its
obligations by a members' agent can constitute any breach of
the prohibition
in paragraph 4 of Part B of the underwriting
agents Byelaw, since in each case
the function of managing agent
will always be performed by a managing
agent: indeed, on my
understanding of the position, this is precisely what was
intended
by the draftsman of the agency and sub-agency agreements, who
plainly
intended that there should be no breach of the Byelaw.
There is
another consideration which strongly supports the conclusion
that
clause 2(a) of the agency agreement must be read as
imposing
responsibility on the members' agent in respect of
underwriting for the Name.
It is plain from the two prescribed
forms of agreement that, in a case
involving an indirect Name,
they create no contractual relationship between
the Name and the
managing agent. On the contrary, as I have already
indicated,
there is a clear structure by virtue of which, under clause 2(a)
of
the agency agreement, the members' agent is appointed the
Name's
underwriting agent for the purpose set out in the
sub-clause; and, under clause
2 of the sub-agency agreement, it is
provided (here mirroring the recital to
that agreement) that the
sub-agent (the managing agent) shall act as sub-agent
for the
agent (the members' agent). Consistently with these provisions,
under
clause 4 of the agency agreement all the necessary powers
are vested in the
underwriting agent (the members' agent),
including the power to delegate
contained in clause 4(b)(G); and
clause 5(a) of the sub-agency agreement
provides for the
delegation by the agent (the members' agent) to the sub-agent
- 38 -
(the managing
agent) of the performance of all duties and the exercise of
all
powers, authorities and discretions imposed or conferred upon
the agent by the
agency agreement as may be appropriate or
necessary.
It was
submitted by Mr. Eder on behalf of the members' agents before
Saville
J. and the Court of Appeal, and again before the Appellate
Committee,
that in cases involving indirect Names there was indeed
a contractual
relationship between the Names and the managing
agents, under which the
managing agents were contractually
responsible for the proper performance
of the underwriting for the
Names. In this connection, Mr. Eder relied in
particular upon the
fact that the recital to the sub-agency agreement recites
that it
has been arranged between the agent and the sub-agent that the
sub-
agent shall act as the sub-underwriting agent for the Names.
However, the
substantive provisions of the sub-agency agreement (in
particular,
clauses 2, 3, and 5) make it perfectly clear that, although the
sub-
agent has power to underwrite for the agent's names, i.e. to
bind the Names
to contracts of insurance, nevertheless there is no
contractual relationship
between the sub-agent and the Names, the
only relevant contractual
relationship of the sub-agent being with
the agent. In this connection the true
position in law is, in my
opinion, accurately stated by Professor F.M.B.
Reynolds in Article
36(3) of the 15th edition (1985) of Bowstead on Agency,
p. 131, as
follows:
"But there
is no privity of contract between a principal and a sub-agent
as
such, merely because the delegation was effected with the
authority
of the principal; and in the absence of such privity the
rights and
duties arising out of any contracts between the
principal and the agent,
and between the agent and the sub-agent,
respectively, are only
enforceable by and against the immediate
parties to those contracts.
However, the sub-agent may be liable
to the principal as a fiduciary,
and possibly in other respects."
Of the three
authorities cited by Mr. Eder in support of his submission
on this
point De Bussche v. Alt (1877) 8 Ch.D. 286, Powell &
Thomas v.
Evan Jones & Co. [1905] 1 KB 11 and
Tarn v. Scanlan [1928] A.C. 34, the
first two were
concerned with the accountability of a sub-agent for secret
profits,
and the third with liability for income tax. Each was a decision on
its
own specific facts, and none provides Mr. Eder with assistance
in the form
of general guidance on the circumstances in which a
contractual relationship
may come into existence between a
principal and a sub-agent. I am satisfied
that no such
relationship came into existence between the Names and
their
sub-agents in the present case.
In these
circumstances, Mr. Eder's argument leads to the
extraordinary
conclusion that, under the prescribed forms of
agency and sub-agency
agreements, neither members' agents nor
managing agents assumed any
contractual responsibility to the
Names for the underwriting which was the
- 39 -
principal
purpose of these agreements. Such a conclusion is, in my opinion.
so
improbable that it adds considerable support for the view that Mr.
Eder's
argument cannot be right, and that the true position must
be that, on a true
construction of clause 2(a) of the agency
agreement, members' agents did
indeed undertake to carry out
underwriting for the Names, as was held by
both courts below.
I recognise, of
course, that it might have been thought right to
structure the
agreements differently, so that the managing agents were put into
a
direct contractual relationship with indirect Names who are members
of
Syndicates under their management. This was what was in fact
done under
the new forms of agreement brought into force as from 1
January 1990. But
it is plain that this was not the intention
under the forms of agreement now
under consideration under which,
in cases involving indirect Names, the
managing agent acts as
sub-agent of the members' agent, and all the necessary
powers,
etc. are vested in the members' agent which then delegates
the
performance of them to the managing agent.
In truth, once
it is appreciated that the obligation to underwrite under
clause
2(a) of the agency agreement may be performed by the
underwriting
agent either by itself in a case involving direct
Names, or otherwise through
a managing agent under the terms of
the sub-agency agreement, everything
falls into place. This is
particularly true of clause 4 of the agency agreement,
when read
in conjunction with clauses 2 and 5 of the sub-agency agreement.
As
far as clause 4(b)(G) of the agency agreement is concerned, on which
Mr.
Eder placed such reliance, this can be seen to reflect
precisely the position
under clauses 2(a) and 4(a); the effect of
the sub-clause is, as obviously
contemplated by the draftsman of
the two agreements, that under the first part
the members agent
will appoint the managing agent to act as its sub-agent for
the
purpose of conducting the relevant part of the underwriting business,
under
clause 2 of the sub-agency agreement, and under the second
part delegate to
it under clause 5(a) the performance of the
relevant powers, etc., which,
significantly, are vested in the
members' agent under clause 4(a) of the agency
agreement. The
vesting of these powers in the members' agent is, in my
opinion, a
strong pointer against the construction of the agreements for
which
Mr. Eder contends. Had that construction represented the
draftsman's
intention, he would surely, in this respect at least,
have drafted the agreements
differently.
For these
reasons, which I understand to be the same as those given
by
Saville J., which were accepted by the Court of Appeal, I would on
this
issue accept the argument advanced on behalf of the Names,
and reject that
advanced on behalf of the members' agents.
III Merrett Appeals
Reinsurance to Close.
- 40 -
On this Issue,
I can see no answer to the conclusion reached by Saville
J. and
the Court of Appeal. I agree with the submission advanced by
Mr.
Borwood Q.C. on behalf of the Names in the Merrett Appeals
that when
Names on the 1985 underwriting year reinsured Names on
the 1984 year,
although the 1984 Names were running off their
business, the 1985 Names
were writing new insurance business which
could only be done pursuant to the
1985 Byelaw form of agreement
in force as from 1 January 1987, as held by
the courts below.
Conclusion
For these
reasons, I would answer all the questions in the same manner
as
Saville J. and the Court of Appeal, and I would dismiss the appeals
of the
members' agents and the managing agents with costs.
LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON
My Lords,
I have read the
speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Goff of
Chieveley, with
which I am in complete agreement. I add a few words of my
own on
the relationship between the claim based on liability for
negligence
and the alternative claim advanced by the Names founded
on breach of
fiduciary duty.
The decision of
this House in Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller
and
Partners Ltd. [1964] AC 465, was, to a substantial
extent, founded on the
earlier decision of this House in Nocton
v. Lord Ashburton [1914] AC 932.
In that case, Lord
Ashburton sought to be relieved from the consequences of
having
loaned money to, amongst others, his solicitor Nocton.
Lord
Ashburton's pleadings were based primarily on an allegation
of fraud; in
particular, there was no allegation on the pleadings
either of breach of
contract by Nocton or of negligence. The lower
courts treated the case as
being wholly dependent on proof of
fraud. But in this House Nocton was held
liable for breach of a
fiduciary obligation owed by him as solicitor to his
client.
However, although the decision was based on breach of fiduciary
duty,
both Viscount Haldane L.C. and Lord Shaw expressed such
fiduciary
duty as being but one example of a wider general
principle, viz., that a man
who has voluntarily assumed to act on
behalf of, or to advise, another in law
assumes a duty to that
other to act or to advise with care. Viscount Haldane
said, at p.
948:
"Although
liability for negligence in word has in material respects
been
developed in our law differently from liability for negligence
in
act, it is nonetheless true that the man may come under a
special duty
to exercise care in giving information or advice. I
should accordingly
be sorry to be thought to lend countenance to
the idea that recent
- 41 -
decisions have
been intended to stereotype the cases in which people
can be held
to have assumed such a special duty. Whether such a duty
has been
assumed must depend on the relationship of the parties, and
it is
at least certain that there are a good many cases in which
that
relationship may be properly treated as giving rise to a
special duty of
care in statement."
Viscount
Haldane gave a further explanation of the decision in Nocton v.
Lord
Ashburton in Robinson v. The National Bank of Scotland
Ltd. [1916] S.C.
(H.L.) 154. 157:
". . .I
wish emphatically to repeat what I said in advising this House
in
the case of Nocton v. Lord Ashburton, that it is a great
mistake to
suppose that, because the principle in Derry v.
Peek clearly covers all
cases of the class to which I have
referred, therefore the freedom of
action of the courts in
recognising special duties arising out of other
kinds of
relationship which they find established by the evidence is in
any
way affected. I think, as I said in Nocton's case, that
an
exaggerated view was taken by a good many people of the scope
of the
decision in Derry v. Peek. The whole of the
doctrine as to fiduciary
relationships, as to the duty of care
arising from implied as well as
expressed contract, as to the duty
of care arising from other special
relationships which the courts
may find to exist in particular cases, still
remains, and I shall
be very sorry if any word fell from me which
suggests that the
courts are in any way hampered in recognising that
the duty of
care may be established when such cases really occur."
It was these
passages from the speeches of Viscount Haldane, and others.
which
this House in Hedley Byrne took up and developed into the
general
principle there enunciated as explained by my noble and
learned friend, Lord
Goff of Chieveley.
This derivation
from fiduciary duties of care of the principle of liability
in
negligence where a defendant has by his action assumed responsibility
is
illuminating in a number of ways. First, it demonstrates that
the alternative
claim put forward by the Names based on breach of
fiduciary duty, although
understandable, was misconceived. The
liability of a fiduciary for the
negligent transaction of his
duties is not a separate head of liability but the
paradigm of the
general duty to act with care imposed by law on those who
take it
upon themselves to act for or advise others. Although the
historical
development of the rules of law and equity have, in the
past, caused different
labels to be stuck on different
manifestations of the duty, in truth the duty of
care imposed on
bailees, carriers, trustees, directors, agents and others is the
same
duty: it arises from the circumstances in which the defendants
were
acting, not from their status or description. It is the fact
that they have all
assumed responsibility for the property or
affairs of others which renders them
liable for the careless
performance of what they have undertaken to do, not
the
description of the trade or position which they hold. In my judgment,
the
- 42 -
duties which
the managing agents have assumed to undertake in managing
the
insurance business of the Names brings them clearly into the
category of those
who are liable, whether fiduciaries or not, for
any lack of care in the conduct
of that management.
Secondly, in my
judgment, the derivation of the general principle from
fiduciary
duties may be instructive as to the impact of any
contractual
relationship between the parties on the general duty
of care which would
otherwise apply. The phrase "fiduciary
duties" is a dangerous one, giving rise
to a mistaken
assumption that all fiduciaries owe the same duties in
all
circumstances. That is not the case. Although, so far as I am
aware, every
fiduciary is under a duty not to make a profit from
his position (unless such
profit is authorised), the fiduciary
duties owed, for example, by an express
trustee are not the same
as those owed by an agent. Moreover, and more
relevantly, the
extent and nature of the fiduciary duties owed in any particular
case
fall to be determined by reference to any underlying
contractual
relationship between the parties. Thus, in the case of
an agent employed
under a contract, the scope of his fiduciary
duties is determined by the terms
of the underlying contract.
Although an agent is, in the absence of contractual
provision, in
breach of his fiduciary duties if he acts for another who is
in
competition with his principal, if the contract under which he
is acting
authorise him so to do, the normal fiduciary duties are
modified accordingly:
see Kelly v. Cooper [1993]
A.C. 205, and the cases there cited. The
existence of a contract
does not exclude the co-existence of concurrent
fiduciary duties
(indeed, the contract may well be their source); but the
contract
can and does modify the extent and nature of the general duty
that
would otherwise arise.
In my judgment,
this traditional approach of equity to fiduciary duties
is
instructive when considering the relationship between a contract and
any
duty of care arising under the Hedley Byrne principle
(of which fiduciary
duties of care are merely an example). The
existence of an underlying
contract (e.g. as between solicitor and
client) does not automatically exclude
the general duty of care
which the law imposes on those who voluntarily
assume to act for
others. But the nature and terms of the contractual
relationship
between the parties will be determinative of the scope of
the
responsibility assumed and can, in some cases, exclude any
assumption of
legal responsibility to the plaintiff for whom the
defendant has assumed to act.
If the common law is not to become
again manacled by "clanking chains" (this
time
represented by causes, rather than forms, of action), it is in my
judgment
important not to exclude concepts of concurrent liability
which the courts of
equity have over the years handled without
difficulty. I can see no good
reason for holding that the
existence of a contractual right is in all
circumstances
inconsistent with the co-existence of another tortious
right,
provided that it is understood that the agreement of the
parties evidenced by
the contract can modify and shape the
tortious duties which, in the absence of
contract, would be
applicable.
- 43 -
For these
reasons, in addition to the much wider considerations
addressed
by Lord Goff of Chieveley, I would dismiss the appeals.
LORD MUSTILL
My Lords.
I have had the
advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my
noble and
learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley, and for the reasons which
he
gives, I too would dismiss the appeals of the Members' Agents and
the
Managing Agents with costs.
LORD NOLAN
My Lords.
I have had the
advantage of reading in draft the speech prepared by my
noble and
learned friend Lord Goff of Chieveley, and for the reasons which
he
gives, I too would dismiss these appeals with costs.
- 44 -