"2. By an oral agreement made between the Part 20 Claimant and the Part 20 Defendant, on or about the 6th day of October 1994, the Part 20 Claimant agreed to pay one half of the hire charges (including insurance covering, inter alia, Third Party personal injury claims) of a hire car for the 7th day of October 1994 in respect of which both the Part 20 Claimant and the Part 20 Defendant were to be named drivers. 3. In pursuance of the said agreement the Part 20 Claimant paid the Part 20 Defendant the sum which the Part 20 Defendant indicated was one half of the charges for the said car. 4. In purported pursuance of the said agreement, the Part 20 Defendant hired a car on the 7th day of October 1994. 5. On the 7th day of October 1994, whilst driving the said hire car, the Claimant was involved in a road traffic accident wherein the Claimant claims she sustained personal injuries. 6. The Part 20 Claimant ought to be indemnified in respect of the Claimant's claim, by the insurance company providing the cover, which the Part 20 Defendant purported to obtain for the said hire car. 7. It was an implied term of the said agreement that the Part 20 Defendant would preserve and make available to the Part 20 Claimant all documents relating to the insurance on the said car in the event that there was a claim arising out of the Part 20 Claimant's driving of the said car. 8. In breach of the said implied term, the Part 20 Defendant has failed to preserve and/or make available to the Part 20 Claimant the necessary documents for the Part 20 Claimant to claim an indemnity in respect of the Claimant's claim herein, from the insurance company with whom the Part 20 Defendant purported to obtain cover for the said vehicle."
"The claimant herein has made a claim against him in respect of which the Part 20 Claimant has been unable to notify, hand over to, and be indemnified by, an insurance company because the Part 20 Defendant has not supplied the details necessary to register a claim for indemnity. The Part 20 Claimant will suffer loss and damage to the extent, if any, that the Claimant is successful in her claim, and in respect of irrecoverable costs of the action brought by the Claimant who now has the benefit of a Legal Aid Certificate."
"I am satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Drs Khan and Grocutt did, in fact, intend to enter into legal relations and did, in fact, do so. It does not seem to me to matter that had Dr Khan simply failed to procure insurance or a car that Dr Grocutt accepted in those circumstances, whilst he might be upset, he would not have any claim against Dr Grocutt. The distinction is that having procured the car and insurance, and having entered into relations with third parties, it is clear, in my judgment, that they were intent upon entering into legal relations as between themselves."
"The Part 20 claimant argues for an implied term along the lines I have set out. The Part 20 defendant says that such a term is too broad and the obligation imposes too high a duty. At best the only duty that can arise is a duty to take reasonable care of the documents. As it seems to me, it is common ground that Dr Khan was to have custody, for want of a better word, of the documents and on the morning of the hiring he retained those documents. It is equally common ground that the intention was that both Dr Khan and Dr Grocutt would drive the car at some point during that day since otherwise there was no reason for them to sign the documents and for Dr Grocutt to be named as a second driver. In those circumstances the parties must have known that had there been an accident documents would have to be produced. I conclude it must have been in the contemplation of Dr Khan and Dr Grocutt that in such circumstances if the accident happened when Dr Grocutt was driving, Dr Khan would be obliged to have preserved the documents and to produce them at Dr Grocutt's request. In my judgment, the implication of such a term is both necessary to give business efficacy to the agreement between the two doctors and represents the obvious, if unexpressed, intention of the parties."
"I accept the submission of counsel for Dr Grocutt that both parties were under the impression that the policy of insurance obtained was fully comprehensive. There is no evidence which as has been adduced to suggest that there were any restrictions on the policy whether in respect of the recovery of legal costs or otherwise and in the circumstances it seems to me I am entitled to infer that the policy means what it says and has the same meaning as it would under English law. It follows that Dr Grocutt is entitled to indemnity which includes any costs not recoverable from the claimant as a result of the claimant's having the benefit of public funding."
"Now it is quite possible for parties to come to an agreement by accepting a proposal with the result that the agreement concluded does not give rise to legal relations. The reason of this is that the parties do not intend that their agreement shall give rise to legal relations. This intention may be implied from the subject matter of the agreement, but it may also be expressed by the parties. In social and family relations such an intention is readily implied, while in business matters the opposite result would ordinarily follow."
"To create a contract there must be a common intention of the parties to enter into legal obligations, mutually communicated expressly or impliedly. Such an intention ordinarily will be inferred when parties enter into an agreement which in other respects confirms to the rules of law as to the formation of contracts. It may be negatived impliedly by the nature of the agreed promise or promises, as in the case of offer and acceptance of hospitality, or of some agreements made in the course of family life between members of a family."
"What happened was that the plaintiff entrusted Frankenheim with the box to take it to Christie's, where it was to have been sold. This Frankenheim did not do, but handed the box to the defendant as security for a debt of his own. This transaction amounted to a bailment to Frankenheim for a special purpose, which he did not carry out, and on failure of the trust the plaintiff's right to immediate possession accrued at once."
"The policy will usually make express provisions for the costs of defending a claim. Thus a column clause provides: 'In respect of a claim for damages to which the indemnity expressed in this policy applies the Company will also indemnify the insured against: (a) all costs and expenses of litigation recovered by any claimant from the insured, (b) all costs and expenses of litigation incurred with the written consent of the company'."
"...would certainly cover the third party's costs of a successful claim and the insured's costs if incurred with written consent. It would probably not apply to the insured's own costs of meeting an unsuccessful claim, since such a claim would not be a claim to which the indemnity expressed in this policy applies."