Hodges v Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Ltd
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
- LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE
- LORD JUSTICE McCOMBE
- LORD JUSTICE VOS
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Insurance Law
2014
COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case is an appeal from the Central London County Court where the Claimant, Ms Lacey Hodges, challenged the dismissal of her claim for an additional $50,000 insurance payout following her husband's death during his contractual duties in Iraq. The court affirmed the lower court's decision denying her claim, determining the sums already paid adhered to the contract terms and were not unreasonable under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. Lord Justice Vos dissented, arguing the sum should be construed as a lump sum.
Judgment
Lord Justice McCombe:
(A) Introduction
This is an appeal from the order made on 24 January 2014 by HH Judge Mitchell, sitting in the Central London County Court, whereby he gave judgment for the Defendant/Respondent, Aegis Defence Services (BVI) Limited (“the Defendant”) dismissing the action brought against it by the Claimant/Appellant, Ms Lacey Hodges (“the Claimant”), with costs to be assessed, if not agreed. The learned judge refused permission to appeal to this court, but permission was granted by order of Gloster LJ of 20 April 2014.
(B) Factual Background
By a written contract dated 19 May 2006 (but signed on 28 May 2006), the Claimant’s late husband, Ian Chalmers (“Mr Chalmers”), a former member of the British armed services, was engaged by the Defendant as a “security escort team” member for a term of one year, subject to option to renew on both sides, from 31 May 2006 to 1 June 2007. The annual fee for Mr Chalmers’ services was stated to be US$150,789. It was provided by clause 13 of the contract that it was a contract for services and not of employment. Mr Chalmers’ function under the contract was to provide support and security escort to US personnel based in Iraq. The contract expressly stated that deployment under the contract involved working in a high risk, hostile environment. Tragically, on 26 August 2007, Mr Chalmers was fatally injured in an explosion in the course of carrying out his duties under the contract. He was 26 years old.
(C) The issue in the proceedings
The issue before the judge and before us is as to the proper sums due to the Claimant under the contract pursuant to the provisions contained in it, requiring the Defendant to insure Mr Chalmers against death or injury while performing services under it.
Following Mr Chalmers’ death, a sum of $150,000, divided as to 80% to the Claimant and as to 20% to Mr Chalmers’ father, in accordance with Mr Chalmers’ nomination to that effect, was paid. Further periodical payments have been made to the Claimant at the rate of $1,160.36 per week or thereabouts. By the date of trial, some $362,496.46 had been paid to the Claimant by way of these periodical payments.
It was the Claimant’s contention at trial, as it is before us, that pursuant to the contract of engagement, the Defendant was required to pay to the insured’s nominee a minimum lump sum of $200,000. As she had only received a proportionate share of $150,000, she claimed to entitled to a further proportionate sha