ABSTRACT
In moving from primary to what is termed the secondary categories of loss and expense, matters are very different, in that apportionment or other formulaic ascertainment may be appropriate. The provisions over ascertainment of loss and expense are present to ease matters by giving a procedure for settling which may save recourse to the courts, but without spelling out the formula for settling, as do the variations provisions. The Court of Appeal definitely disagreed with the High Court's view that financing charges were indirect expense rather than direct. They thus confirmed that financing charges were in principle admissible in loss and expense claims. The two discrete methods of ascertaining loss and expense in this area may be contrasted as by use of a formula or by isolation of individual items of cost. The recovery of the balance of their overhead costs will then depend upon enough loss and expense claims arising to bring in the difference.
