Channon (t/a Channon & Co) v Ward (t/a Ward & Associates)

Channon (t/a Channon & Co) v Ward (t/a Ward & Associates)

The appeal was dismissed because the claimant failed to prove he suffered a loss that would have been indemnified under the putative insurance policy. The court found that insurers would have refused indemnity and assistance based on clear policy exclusions and the nature of the claims, and that the claimant would not have challenged such refusal. There was no substantial chance that the claimant would have been indemnified or assisted, so no recoverable loss arose from the defendant's negligence.

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 After Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Professional Indemnity Insurance, Assessment of Damages, Loss of Chance, Mitigation of Loss, Exclusion Clauses, Consent Judgments
Insurance Law Professional Negligence Contract Law Professional Indemnity Insurance Assessment of Damages Loss of Chance Mitigation of Loss Exclusion Clauses +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 3 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 After Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant suffered a compensable loss due to the defendant's failure to procure professional indemnity insurance
  2. 2 Whether insurers would have indemnified or assisted the claimant in defending investor claims
  3. 3 Whether the claimant lost a substantial chance of being indemnified or assisted by insurers

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claimant failed to prove he suffered a loss that would have been indemnified under the putative insurance policy. The court found that insurers would have refused indemnity and assistance based on clear policy exclusions and the nature of the claims, and that the claimant would not have challenged such refusal. There was no substantial chance that the claimant would have been indemnified or assisted, so no recoverable loss arose from the defendant's negligence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs to be paid by the appellant to the respondent