Jones v Environcom Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1152 (13 October 2011)

Jones v Environcom Ltd & Anor [2011] EWCA Civ 1152 (13 October 2011)

Permission to amend the pleadings to introduce the 'no fire' claim was refused because it was a fundamentally new, fact-sensitive issue not pleaded or argued at trial, and raising it on appeal would be unjust and contrary to established principles of civil procedure. The broker's duty did not extend to preventing...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1152
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 / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Broker's Duty of Care, Causation and Remoteness, Pleading Amendments, Scope of Duty, Loss of Chance
Insurance Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Broker's Duty of Care Causation and Remoteness Pleading Amendments Scope of Duty Loss of Chance

Source-derived case record

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 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 / Court of Appeal (civil Division) on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division, Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurance broker (Miles Smith) breached its duty to advise Environcom on disclosure to insurers
  2. 2 Whether Environcom suffered loss as a result of the broker's breach
  3. 3 Whether Environcom could amend its pleadings on appeal to claim that the broker's breach caused the fire itself (the 'no fire' claim)

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend the pleadings to introduce the 'no fire' claim was refused because it was a fundamentally new, fact-sensitive issue not pleaded or argued at trial, and raising it on appeal would be unjust and contrary to established principles of civil procedure. The broker's duty did not extend to preventing the fire itself, and the loss claimed was too remote.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to amend pleadings refused
  • No remission to trial court; original judgment stands