Shaw v Lighthousexpress Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 161 (10 March 2010)

Shaw v Lighthousexpress Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 161 (10 March 2010)

The appeal is allowed because the claim is barred by clause 4.17 of the ARC, which provides a six-year limitation period following resignation, and the Company did not make any claim within that period. Additionally, the claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof that the sum paid was within the PI insurance excess.

Citation
[2010] EWCA Civ 161
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Philip Nicholas Shaw; Respondent/claimant: Lighthousexpress Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Contractual Rights, Indemnity Clauses, Limitation Clauses, Professional Indemnity Insurance
Contract Law Financial Services Law Assignment of Contractual Rights Indemnity Clauses Limitation Clauses Professional Indemnity Insurance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Nicholas Shaw

Appellant/defendant

Lighthousexpress Ltd

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity clause in the Appointed Representative Contract (ARC) was assignable to Lighthousexpress Ltd
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity clause was void for uncertainty
  3. 3 Whether the sum paid to Mrs Lalaz was within the excess of the professional indemnity insurance

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the claim is barred by clause 4.17 of the ARC, which provides a six-year limitation period following resignation, and the Company did not make any claim within that period. Additionally, the claimants failed to discharge the burden of proof that the sum paid was within the PI insurance excess.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claim against Philip Nicholas Shaw dismissed
  • No indemnity payable by Shaw to Lighthousexpress Ltd