Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP v (Enterprise Insurance Company Plc & Ors

Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP v (Enterprise Insurance Company Plc & Ors

The application for summary judgment/strike out is dismissed because BPL/BPS has a realistic prospect of establishing a direct contractual right against the insurers or a right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The question of material breach of the 2000 Regulations and disclosure of interest cannot be determined summarily and requires a full trial. Subrogation and restitution do not provide a direct right of action. Relief from sanctions is granted as both sides are in default and there are good reasons for the delay.

Parties
Claimant: Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP; First Defendant: Enterprise Insurance Company PLC; Second Defendant: Isle of Man Insurance Limited; Third Defendant: Mount Grace Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out and Related Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application for summary judgment/strike out dismissed; relief from sanctions granted.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance, Privity of Contract, Disclosure of Interest, Relief From Sanctions
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Contract Law Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance Privity of Contract Disclosure of Interest Relief From Sanctions

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP

Claimant

Enterprise Insurance Company PLC

First Defendant

Isle of Man Insurance Limited

Second Defendant

Mount Grace Insurance Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Summary Judgment/strike Out and Related Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant solicitor has a direct right of action against the insurers under ATE policies
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose an interest in recommending insurance renders the CFA unenforceable under the 2000 Regulations
  3. 3 Whether subrogation or restitution provides a basis for the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment/strike out is dismissed because BPL/BPS has a realistic prospect of establishing a direct contractual right against the insurers or a right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The question of material breach of the 2000 Regulations and disclosure of interest cannot be determined summarily and requires a full trial. Subrogation and restitution do not provide a direct right of action. Relief from sanctions is granted as both sides are in default and there are good reasons for the delay.

Court Disposition

Application for summary judgment/strike out dismissed; relief from sanctions granted.

Orders

  • The application for summary judgment/strike out is dismissed.
  • Relief from sanctions is granted to both parties.