Shaw v Lighthousexpress Ltd

Shaw v Lighthousexpress Ltd

The Company failed to prove the sum paid was within the PI insurance excess, and the limitation clause (clause 4.17) provided a six-year period for claims, which had expired before the Company made its claim. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Philip Nicholas Shaw; Respondent/claimant: Lighthousexpress Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Contractual Rights, Indemnity Clauses, Limitation of Liability, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Uncertainty in Contract Terms
Contract Law Insurance Law Assignment of Contractual Rights Indemnity Clauses Limitation of Liability Professional Indemnity Insurance Uncertainty in Contract Terms

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 3 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 / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indemnity clause in the Appointed Representative Contract (ARC) was assignable to the Company under the Business Sale Agreement (BSA)
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity clause was void for uncertainty
  3. 3 Whether the sum paid to Mrs Lalaz was within the professional indemnity insurance excess

Ratio Decidendi

The Company failed to prove the sum paid was within the PI insurance excess, and the limitation clause (clause 4.17) provided a six-year period for claims, which had expired before the Company made its claim. The appeal was allowed on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment below set aside
  • Claim against Mr Shaw dismissed