INDEMNITY CONTRACT

Northern Advocate, 14 September 1932, Page 7

INDEMNITY CONTRACT

IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE. COURT PRONOUNCEMENT. (Special to “Northern Advocate.”) WELLINGTON, Tuesday, A/reserved judgment was given in the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Reed on the issue as to whether a contract of indemnity under the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, 1928, between the South Brutish Insurance Company, Limited, and George Soteros covered two, items in special damages awarded James John Eeely. The two items were a sum of £63, wages paid for additional assistance, and £SB 10/, board and lodgings for the additional persons employed. The case involved an important principle. His Honour was asked to deal also with the question of the costs playable under indemnity by the insurance company.

The action for damages brought by Feely against Soteros, which was heal’d some time ago, arose out -of a motor collision. Feely obtained judgment for £6OO general damages, and £164 14/11 special damages. The latter sum including the. amounts of £63 and £SS 10/.

After reviewing the finding of the jury and the meaning of legislation, his Honour said his view in the case before him was that the amount allowed by the jury on both disputed items was payable by the insurance company under the contract of indemnity and he answered the question on this point accordingly. Costs, said his Honour, were within the discretion of the judge hearing the action, the discretion being, of course, a judicial discretion. “In the present case,” he added, “the damages assessed by. the jury included as special damages (if my judgment with regard to the two disputed items is sound) a comparatively small sum admittedly irrecoverable against plaintiff (the insurance company), it being for damages to property. The amount does not alter the scale of costs, and there is only a few pounds difference between the full costs as allowed and the that would have been allowed had these small amounts not be recovered.

“In these circumstances, the costs payable under the indemnity by the company to Soteros should be ascertained, X think, by assuming that judgment, was confined to the amount of total damages for which the plaintiff is required to indemnify the second defendant, and, adjudging that the costs should be on that scale, I repudiate in advance any suggestion that I am stating this as a .general principle. Every case must bo dealt with in the .light of its own facts.”