Equitas v Horace Holman
[2007] EWHC 903 (Comm)
Andrew Smith J
27 April 2007

 


This important case examines the brokers' duties on the provision of services on discontinued accounts. It concludes that a runoff company is authorised to demand accurate information relating to its accounts and to seek legal redress if it is not provided.

In this long running dispute, Equitas brought proceedings seeking damages on the basis that Horace Holman, as a broker on various outwards contracts of reinsurance written to protect Lloyd's syndicates for 1992, were in breach of their duties. Equitas also sought "delivery up" of all documents relating to the placement and the subsequent administration of the outwards protections as well as an account and payment of any monies found to be due.

The litigation as Smith J put it "proved to be time consuming and expensive". The pleadings were referred to as "prolix and unhelpfully argumentative". The Judge expressed regret that the parties had spent "so much to achieve so little".

It was agreed between the parties that Horace Holman owed the Syndicates duties to:

(i) take reasonable care to maintain proper and adequate records;
(ii) preserve and be constantly ready with correct accounts of all its dealings and transactions on behalf of each syndicate; and
(iii) provide their records to the principal insofar as they relate to transactions done as the principal's agent.

With reference to the third duty, however, Horace Holman argued that they were not obliged to disclose or provide copies of documents created for their own purpose including their IBA ledgers, cash books and nominal ledgers. The Judge roundly dismissed this. He said that Horace Holman was obliged to provide copies of those documents insofar as they recorded transactions that were carried out as Equitas' agent.
Horace Holman had prepared a "composite account", based on "a thorough review of the claims files that were delivered to it by Equitas". They claimed that once they had provided the composite account, they were home and dry.

Again, the Judge disagreed. He accepted that generally, it was a defence to a claim for an account that the accounting party had already provided one. However, in this case, no account was adjusted between the parties and no balance struck - it was, in essence, not sufficient simply for the accounting party to state an amount acknowledged to be due.

In addition, where the accounting information was inadequate or unsatisfactory, the simple provision of an account was not a good defence.

He concluded that Horace Holman's records were vulnerable to errors, the composite account was not presented in sufficient detail and it was impossible for Equitas to challenge them on the basis of the claims files with which they had been provided, alone.

As such, Equitas was justified in bringing proceedings and were entitled to their costs - this point had, as the Judge acknowledged, become an important issue even though the amounts involved in the account were minor.

So, even though the servicing of discontinued accounts must be an unattractive proposition fro any broker, this ruling makes it clear that they must be serviced as effectively as those that are live.