Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Before :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE COOKE
Between :
THE SOCIETY OF LLOYD’S | Claimant |
- and - | |
ERIC NIGEL LAWS AND OTHERS | Defendant |
David Foxton (instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer) for the Claimant and Defendant to Part 20 Claim (The Society of Lloyd’s)
Jeremy Callman (instructed by Grower Freeman, Solicitors) for the Defendants and Part 30 Claimants (the UNO Names)
Mrs Reisz and Mrs Ann Strong in person
Hearing dates : 16th 20th 21st 22nd and 28th January 2004
Judgment
Mr Justice Cooke:
In paragraph 124 of my Judgment of 28th January 2004 I invited the parties to address me further on the question of the arguable quantum of loss suffered by Mr Drysdale because the figures put forward by Lloyd’s, on the one hand, apparently based on publicly available syndicate figures, and those put forward by Mr Drysdale on the other were so markedly different. It seemed to me, before handing down the judgment, that the substantial difference was essentially explained by a mistaken decimal point in the calculations put forward by Mr Drysdale. Fresh calculations have now been advanced on his behalf, after I gave time to him to make submissions in writing. Those calculations reveal that this was the mistake made. On the figures he now puts forward and on the principles which I have set out, his loss for the 1982 year is £30,436, whereas, on the previous figures, allowing for the decimal point, I had provisionally concluded that his total loss for that underwriting year, was a maximum figure of £39, 289.
The overall position is as follows.
As already found by me the closed year figures for Mr Drysdale’s 1982 underwriting gave rise to a profit of £13,088.50.
The loss on syndicate 126 which remained open for the 1982 year was calculated by Lloyd’s at £38,682 and by Mr Drysdale at £51,722 but this latter figure failed to take into account the Equitas release of £12,936, which gives rise to a figure of £38,786. Mr Drysdale now concedes that the Lloyd’s release figure is correct. I can proceed on the basis of £38,786 as the right figure, allowing for Mr Drysdale’s personal expenses (since the financial accounts for syndicate 126 as at 31st December 1995 showed a net result which would give Mr Drysdale a figure of £38,682, after illustrative personal expenses).
Syndicate 700 also remained open for the 1982 year. Lloyd’s calculated a profit for Mr Drysdale’s share of £10,478, including reinsurance into Equitas. The reports and accounts as at 31st December 1995 record a profit which, for Mr Drysdale’s share would amount to £8,382, the difference once again being probably attributable to personal expenses, but his latest calculations produce a figure of £8142. For these purposes I will take the figure which benefits Mr Drysdale most in this argument, namely £8,142.
The major difference between the calculations arose on syndicate 89 which remained open for the 1982 year. On Mr Drysdale’s £25,000 share, Lloyd’s calculated his loss, including reinsurance into Equitas at £20,800. Mr Drysdale’s calculations totalled £179,678 but it is clear that when one has regard to the loss per £10,000 share, as set out in his table at F5/82 the decimal point has been mis-placed in the calculations for his £25,000 share in each of the years 1985 – 1990. The effect of this is that, on his own original figures, the loss on syndicate 89 was £21,973.50, as compared with the Lloyd’s figure or the figure to be derived from the reports and accounts for the syndicate at 31st December 1995, namely £20,122.50. Once again, taking the figure which benefits Mr Drysdale most for the purpose of this argument, I use £21,973.50.
In these circumstances, to the 1982 closed year profit figure of £13,088.50 has to be added:
the syndicate 126 loss figure of £38,786.
the syndicate 700 profit figure of £8,142.
the syndicate 89 loss figure of £21,973.50.
This makes for a maximum aggregate loss claimable by Mr Drysdale for his 1982 underwriting of £39,425, as compared with his own most recent calculation of £30,436, which may well be more accurate than my generous assessment for the purposes of this argument only. On this footing whatever rates of interest are allowed, Mr Drysdale’s claim cannot arguably equal or over-top the Statutory Demand figure of £310, 504.