Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd

Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd

The exclusion clause in the FGI policies did not extend to breaches of the Refinancing Agreement, as the policies and their context did not contemplate future refinancing arrangements outside the original litigation funding scheme. The application to amend the Defence to plead breaches of the Refinancing Agreement was refused due to excessive delay and lack of justification, upholding the need for finality in litigation.

Parties
Part 20 Claimant / Respondent: Nesbit Law Group LLP; Part 20 Defendant / Appellant: Acasta European Insurance Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses, Amendment of Pleadings, Litigation Funding Schemes
Insurance Law Contract Law Interpretation of Exclusion Clauses Amendment of Pleadings Litigation Funding Schemes

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nesbit Law Group LLP

Part 20 Claimant / Respondent

Acasta European Insurance Company Limited

Part 20 Defendant / Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of an exclusion clause in Financial Guarantee Indemnity policies
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion clause covers breaches of a subsequent refinancing agreement
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend the Defence to plead breaches of the refinancing agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion clause in the FGI policies did not extend to breaches of the Refinancing Agreement, as the policies and their context did not contemplate future refinancing arrangements outside the original litigation funding scheme. The application to amend the Defence to plead breaches of the Refinancing Agreement was refused due to excessive delay and lack of justification, upholding the need for finality in litigation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Acasta's appeal is dismissed.
  • Permission to amend the Defence is allowed only as to the construction point, refused as to breaches of the Refinancing Agreement.