Jones v Environcom Ltd & Anor

Jones v Environcom Ltd & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that Environcom's new 'no fire' case was not pleaded or argued at trial, was fundamentally different from the original pleaded case, and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Permission to amend was refused because the amendment would introduce complex, fact-sensitive issues not properly investigated at trial, and it would be unjust to allow such a change at the appellate stage. The appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Nicholas G Jones; Defendant / Appellant: Environcom Limited; Defendant / Appellant: Environcom England Limited; Third Party / Respondent: MS PLC (trading as Miles Smith Insurance Brokers)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment; Application to Amend Pleadings on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Duty by Insurance Broker, Causation and Remoteness of Damage, Amendment of Pleadings on Appeal, Scope of Broker's Duty, Loss of Chance
Insurance Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Breach of Duty by Insurance Broker Causation and Remoteness of Damage Amendment of Pleadings on Appeal Scope of Broker's Duty Loss of Chance

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas G Jones

Claimant

Environcom Limited

Defendant / Appellant

Environcom England Limited

Defendant / Appellant

MS PLC (trading as Miles Smith Insurance Brokers)

Third Party / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment; Application to Amend Pleadings on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Environcom could amend pleadings on appeal to claim that the fire would have been avoided but for broker's negligence
  2. 2 Whether the loss claimed was within the scope of the broker's duty and not too remote
  3. 3 Whether permission to amend should be granted at the appellate stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that Environcom's new 'no fire' case was not pleaded or argued at trial, was fundamentally different from the original pleaded case, and could not be raised for the first time on appeal. Permission to amend was refused because the amendment would introduce complex, fact-sensitive issues not properly investigated at trial, and it would be unjust to allow such a change at the appellate stage. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings refused
  • No order for remission; trial judgment stands