• INSURANCE 

Temple Legal Protection Ltd v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

This is an appeal by Temple Legal Protection Ltd ("Temple") against the order of Beatson J. made on 25th April 2008 dismissing Temple's appeal against an award made by the arbitrator, Mr. J.H.L. Leckie, in proceedings against the respondent, QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd ("QBE").

Towards the end of 2004 Europ Assistance indicated its intention to withdraw from the market when its binder expired and accordingly on 1st December 2005 Temple entered into a binder with QBE which came into effect on 1st January 2006. QBE had no previous experience in the writing of legal expenses insurance.

Relations between QBE and Temple appear to have deteriorated early in 2006. QBE complained that Temple had failed to provide all the information required under the binder; Temple disputed that and said that QBE did not understand the workings of the legal expenses insurance market. Relations deteriorated further in or about June of that year when one of Temple's underwriting directors, Mr. Rocco Pirozzolo, resigned in order to take up the position of legal expenses underwriter with QBE. Temple thought that QBE was trying to steal its business. In August 2006 Temple served notice to terminate the binder and shortly afterwards entered into a binder with a new insurer, IGI, which took effect from 1st October 2006. At that point it stopped writing new business for QBE. On 4th January 2007 QBE wrote to Temple stating that it would assume all claims handling functions relating to policies underwritten by QBE, including the run-off. It also wrote to a number of coverholders asking them to deal directly with it in future.

It was held that a principal can always revoke his agent's authority, even if he has agreed not to do so, save in an extremely limited and rare class of case, which can be described loosely as an agency coupled with an interest. The appeal was dismissed.

• CRIMINAL

R v Johnson & Ors 

England and Wales Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) Decisions

Brief facts of the case is that   Danny O'Loughlin, Richard 'Chad' Johnson, Ricky Stephen Samuel Johnson, Michael Nicholls and Albi Johnson were convicted of conspiracy to commit burglary with intent to steal Crown Court at Reading. They were sentenced to substantial terms of imprisonment. O'Loughlin and Chad Johnson (as we shall refer to him, in order to avoid confusion) also pleaded guilty to an offence of handling stolen goods. All except Ricky Johnson have leave to appeal against conviction. Ricky Johnson was refused leave by the single Judge but now renews his application. Some of those who have leave also seek to renew their applications in relation to grounds upon which they were refused leave by the single Judge.

Between 9 April 2005 and 25 April 2006 sixteen burglaries were carried out at large country houses and commercial premises in or just outside the triangle bordered by the M4, the M5 and the M40. They were notable for the quantities and value of the items that were stolen including, in particular, antiques, silver, porcelain and jewellery. At trial, the case for the prosecution was that the 16 burglaries were manifestations of a single conspiracy. There was and is a close relationship between the five men charged with the conspiracy. Ricky Johnson is the father of Chad Johnson and Albi Johnson. O'Loughlin and Nicholls are related to the Johnsons by marriage. At the material time, O'Loughlin, Chad Johnson and Nicholls were living at the Cleeve Prior travellers' site near Stratford on Avon. Ricky Johnson was a frequent visitor to the site. The allegation was that Cleeve Prior was the main base of the conspiracy. The five men all had close and detailed knowledge of the area within which the burglaries occurred and also had a close network of local contacts. It was not alleged that any of them had participated in every burglary. For their part, the defendants at trial maintained that they were not involved in any of the burglaries and were not parties to a conspiracy. It is convenient to refer to the main features of the evidence upon which the prosecution relied in relation to each of the men.

The judge in his sentencing remarks set out very clearly the reasons why this conspiracy to commit burglary was a very serious offence: it involved the burgling not only of commercial premises but also the burgling at night of isolated country homes which were targeted because the Applicants knew they contained antiques, silver and other items of considerable value. There was, plainly, careful planning and advance reconnaissance; balaclavas or other headgear were worn to prevent identification; suitably high-powered, 4-wheel drive cars were used which had been stolen shortly before the burglaries and were burnt out or abandoned soon afterwards. He pointed out that in several instances the value of the property stolen was in the hundreds of thousands of pounds, and in one case the loss was said to be well over £10 million. Very little of that property had been recovered, another indication of the level of professionalism shown by the conspirators. Those factors led the judge to conclude that this must have been one of the most serious examples of a conspiracy to burgle ever to come before the court, given the amounts involved. He went on, however, to indicate that he did not regard it as a case in which he should pass the maximum of 14 years' imprisonment, because there had not been any use of violence in the course of any of the burglaries.Leave to appeal against sentence was refused.