Kelway v Guardian Insurance Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1605 (26 October 2001)

Kelway v Guardian Insurance Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1605 (26 October 2001)

The appeal was dismissed because the insurance policy only provided cover for the yacht when laid up in a mud berth as specified in the schedule. At the time of the casualty, the yacht was not in a mud berth but on a half tide slipway, and thus not within the scope of cover. The claimant was bound by the policy terms, and there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1605
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Jonathan Kelway; Defendant/respondent: Guardian Insurance Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time
Outcome
Applications dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Policy Interpretation, Scope of Insurance Cover, Material Misrepresentation, Non Disclosure, Brokers' Duties
Insurance Law Contract Law Maritime Law Policy Interpretation Scope of Insurance Cover Material Misrepresentation Non Disclosure Brokers' Duties

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Kelway

Claimant/applicant

Guardian Insurance Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Application for Permission to Appeal and Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the insurance policy covered the yacht at the time and place of the casualty
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was bound by the policy terms despite alleged non-receipt
  3. 3 Whether the claimant could amend his notice of appeal to include a ground of material misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the insurance policy only provided cover for the yacht when laid up in a mud berth as specified in the schedule. At the time of the casualty, the yacht was not in a mud berth but on a half tide slipway, and thus not within the scope of cover. The claimant was bound by the policy terms, and there was no realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Applications for permission to appeal and extension of time dismissed
  • Claimant to pay £500 out of court to the defendant's solicitors as costs