Channon (t/a Channon & Co) v Ward (t/a Ward & Associates) [2017] EWCA Civ 13 (18 January 2017)

Channon (t/a Channon & Co) v Ward (t/a Ward & Associates) [2017] EWCA Civ 13 (18 January 2017)

The claimant failed to prove that, but for the defendant's negligence, he would have obtained indemnity or assistance from insurers, as the claims by investors were not within the scope of professional indemnity cover and would have been refused by insurers. There was no real or substantial chance of a different outcome, so no compensable loss arose.

Citation
[2017] EWCA Civ 13
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Rodney Channon (trading as Channon & Co); Defendant/respondent: John Ward (trading as Ward & Associates)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance, Assessment of Damages, Loss of Chance, Mitigation of Loss, Consent Judgments, Exclusion Clauses in Insurance Policies
Insurance Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Professional Indemnity Insurance Assessment of Damages Loss of Chance Mitigation of Loss Consent Judgments +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rodney Channon (trading as Channon & Co)

Claimant/appellant

John Ward (trading as Ward & Associates)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Assessment of Damages Following Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant suffered a compensable loss as a result of the defendant's failure to procure professional indemnity insurance
  2. 2 Whether, had insurance been in place, the insurer would have indemnified or assisted the claimant in defending claims by investors
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to damages for loss of a chance of indemnity or assistance from insurers

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to prove that, but for the defendant's negligence, he would have obtained indemnity or assistance from insurers, as the claims by investors were not within the scope of professional indemnity cover and would have been refused by insurers. There was no real or substantial chance of a different outcome, so no compensable loss arose.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; damages remain assessed at nil; claimant to pay respondent's costs.