Clarendon Dental Spa LLP & Anor v Aviva Insurance Limited & Anor

Clarendon Dental Spa LLP & Anor v Aviva Insurance Limited & Anor

Zurich’s insolvency question and Aviva’s insolvency declaration, properly interpreted, only required disclosure regarding the Company and its current directors or partners; Zurich waived disclosure of insolvencies of other persons or entities. The Company’s answers were correct, and the pleaded cases in paragraphs 44, 44A, 45, 60, and 61 have no real prospect of success and must be struck out.

Parties
First Claimant: Clarendon Dental Spa LLP; Second Claimant: Clarendon Dental Spa (Leeds) Limited; First Defendant: Aviva Insurance Limited; Second Defendant: Zurich Insurance plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Insurance Dispute / Interlocutory Applications—strike Out and Amendment of Defence
Outcome
Applications granted in part; strike out and refusal of amendment.
Legal Topics
Fair Presentation of Risk, Material Misrepresentation, Waiver of Disclosure, Interpretation of Insurance Proposal Questions, Summary Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Insurance Law Contract Law Fair Presentation of Risk Material Misrepresentation Waiver of Disclosure Interpretation of Insurance Proposal Questions Summary Judgment Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clarendon Dental Spa LLP

First Claimant

Clarendon Dental Spa (Leeds) Limited

Second Claimant

Aviva Insurance Limited

First Defendant

Zurich Insurance plc

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Insurance Dispute / Interlocutory Applications—strike Out and Amendment of Defence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Company made a material misrepresentation by incorrectly answering the Zurich insolvency question
  2. 2 Whether the Company failed to disclose the liquidations of PDS, JHP, and BTB
  3. 3 Whether the Company failed to disclose prior misrepresentation or non-disclosure to Aviva

Ratio Decidendi

Zurich’s insolvency question and Aviva’s insolvency declaration, properly interpreted, only required disclosure regarding the Company and its current directors or partners; Zurich waived disclosure of insolvencies of other persons or entities. The Company’s answers were correct, and the pleaded cases in paragraphs 44, 44A, 45, 60, and 61 have no real prospect of success and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Applications granted in part; strike out and refusal of amendment.

Orders

  • Permission to amend to introduce paragraph 44A and amendments to paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Defence refused.
  • Paragraphs 44, 45, 60, and 61 of the Defence (and references thereto) struck out.