2,051
edits
Changes
From DMC
no edit summary
'''Summary'''
In this judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision at first instance and - in the context of insurance claims - applied the full rigour of the fraudulent device devices doctrine as expressed (obiter) in the case of The “Aegeon”. It declined to introduce any element of proportionality in its application. The Court also held that the forfeiture of the claim as a consequence of the application of the doctrine was not contrary to Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights as enacted into English law.
This case note is based on an article that appeared in a ‘Briefing’ published by the London solicitors Waltons & Morse, authored by Kish Sharma, a barrister at the firm, and Christopher Chatfield, a partner in the firm
(5) Authority for the doctrine antecedent to the “Aegeon” could be found and
(6) The “Aegeon” had been cited “without disapproval” in a number of subsequent cases and n most leading textbooks .
The Court then went on specifically to consider the proportionality of the rule which had concerned the Judge so greatly. It noted that the question of proportionality had received no or only limited consideration in the authorities. However, the Court considered that it was precisely the draconian effect of the rule that gave the doctrine its deterrent effect and therefore its justification .
