Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP v (Enterprise Insurance Company Plc & Ors [2014] EWHC 2194 (QB) (03 July 2014)

Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP v (Enterprise Insurance Company Plc & Ors [2014] EWHC 2194 (QB) (03 July 2014)

The claimant has a realistic prospect of establishing a direct contractual right to claim disbursements from the insurers, either via a direct contract or under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (for the Second Defendant), and the issue of disclosure of interest under the 2000 Regulations cannot be determined summarily without a full trial; therefore, summary judgment/strike out is refused.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 2194 (QB)
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
Outcome
Application for summary judgment/strike out dismissed; relief from sanctions granted.
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Third Party Rights, Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance, Disclosure of Interest, Summary Judgment, Relief From Sanctions
Contract Law Insurance Law Civil Procedure Privity of Contract Third Party Rights Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance Disclosure of Interest +2 more

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 6 Authorities cited 18 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

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 interest in recommending insurance renders the CFA unenforceable under the 2000 Regulations
  3. 3 Whether claims should be struck out for lack of privity or breach of regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant has a realistic prospect of establishing a direct contractual right to claim disbursements from the insurers, either via a direct contract or under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (for the Second Defendant), and the issue of disclosure of interest under the 2000 Regulations cannot be determined summarily without a full trial; therefore, summary judgment/strike out is refused.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment/strike out refused.
  • Relief from sanctions granted to both sides.