Approach to costs
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always aim to approach
legal work in a financially-disciplined way. We offer
competitive rates. Our charging approach is both transparent
and geared to the options open to our clients. Our
solicitors generally charge by reference to time spent but
we can often agree fixed fees for specific work or in some
cases risk-adjusted funding structures.
|
Send us a summary of your circumstances and objectives for a quick response. |
|
 |
INSURANCE
Insurance contracts - fraud - film finance insurance - exclusion clauses - principal's ability to exclude liability for fraudulent or negligent misstatement
C, a bank, appealed against the determination ([2001] 1 All E.R. (Comm) 719) of certain preliminary issues arising in relation to film finance insurance. C had obtained the benefit of a policy of film finance insurance with HIH, the terms of which were negotiated by brokers, H. C had very little knowledge of the film industry and relied upon H. The policy contained a "truth of statement" clause. HIH refused to accept liability to indemnify under the policy alleging that H had been guilty of non disclosure and fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. C maintained that (1) the effect of the truth of statement clause was to exclude the duty to "speak" on the part of both C and H since an agent could have no duty to speak in circumstances where such an obligation was not imposed upon the principal, and (2) the effect of the clause was to offer total protection to C against any non disclosure or misrepresentation by H, even if committed fraudulently.
Held, allowing the appeal in part, that (1) if a circumstance was material then there was an obligation of disclosure upon both principal and agent. In circumstances where the duty of disclosure was effectively waived in the case of the principal then the waiver was effective to exclude the obligation to disclose upon the part of the agent also, Sail v Farex [1995] L.R.L.R. 116 applied, and (2) there was no binding authority providing guidance as to whether a principal could exclude liability for the fraud of his agent. The same public policy considerations did not apply as in the case of a fraud by the principal. Any exclusion would have to be in the clearest possible terms and on the facts of the instant case the clause did not operate to exclude liability for fraud, S Pearson & Son Ltd v Dublin Corp [1907] A.C. 351, Mair v Rio Grande Rubber Estates Ltd [1913] A.C. 853 and Boyd & Forrest v Glasgow & South Western Railway Co 1915 SC 20 considered.
"Current Law" November 20
|
|
Accessibility
We take instructions from UK & international clients. Our independent lawyers are available by email, telephone & fax. With central Bristol offices we are just 90 minutes from London by road or rail and 15 minutes from Bristol International Airport. We can travel to meetings if required.
|
Independent approach
We are an independent professional law firm here, not a legal factory turning out mass-produced products. In our experience, determined case-handling is more likely to produce effective results.
|
Turnaround time
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. look to input not only
careful legal work and precision but also the determination
to keep matters moving. They aim to work in clients' real
interests with energy and pragmatism.
|
Communication skills
Solicitors at Humphreys & Co. always try to open up the
legal process by giving advice and explaining options to
clients in a concise and straightforward way, identifying
clear courses of action whatever the technical or legal
complexities of the subject. |
|
