LegalResearchFoundation

This is the text of the 2019 Dame Silvia Cartwright Address delivered by Dame Helen Winkelmann on 17 October 2019

The current law relating to the doctrine of rectification has been described by Sir Terence Etherton as being marred by uncertainty and complexity. In order to unravel the reasons for our current difficulties we need to understand that the modern law was moulded by Chancery's ancient procedure and reflected the Chancellor's attempts to reconcile a jurisdiction to amend written instruments on the basis of extrinsic evidence with the policy underlying the Statute of Frauds and the integrity of written instruments. The disarray in the modern cases is attributable in part to our tendency to attribute rather more importance today to the dickering and rather less to the writing but in large part it also stems from our having lost sight of the thinking by which the Chancellors sought to ensure that the doctrine of rectification did not undermine the policy of protecting the integrity of written instruments. Understanding this historical background permits a re-evaluation of the leading decision in Chartbrook v Persimmon Homes Ltd and provides insights into two troublesome New Zealand cases.

The Canterbury earthquakes inflicted repeated damage to insured properties in quick succession, unearthing the issue of how the indemnity principle in insurance law operates in successive losses cases. This article examines how indemnity is assessed by dividing these cases into three scenarios: (A) where an unrepaired partial loss is followed by the expiry of the policy, and subsequent further loss; (B) where a repaired partial loss is followed by a further loss in the same policy period; and (C) where an unrepaired partial loss is followed by a further loss in the same policy period. In scenario C, this article challenges the Supreme Court's view in Ridgecrest v IAG that confines the doctrine of merger to marine insurance (the doctrine of merger holds that an unrepaired partial loss is subsumed by a subsequent total loss). The article argues that the doctrine of merger deserves universal application in general insurance because it supports the indemnity principle and has unique value in assessing indemnity in policies with sum insured clauses.