Dunlop Haywards (DHL) & Anor v Erinaceous Insurance Services Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 354 (28 April 2009)

Dunlop Haywards (DHL) & Anor v Erinaceous Insurance Services Ltd & Ors [2009] EWCA Civ 354 (28 April 2009)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge below erred in finding the rectification claim too weak for joinder at the interlocutory stage, given the untested evidence and arguable case that the excess policy was intended to cover DHL for all its activities. The appeal was allowed and the excess insurers were ordered to be joined as parties.

Citation
[2009] EWCA Civ 354
Parties
Claimant: Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Limited; Claimant: Erinaceous Commercial Property Services Limited; Appellant/defendant/part 20 Claimant: Erinaceous Insurance Services Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Lockton Companies International Limited; Intended Part 20 Defendants/respondents: MSI Corporate Capital Limited and Others (Excess Insurers)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Rectification, Joinder of Parties, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Contract Construction
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Rectification Joinder of Parties Professional Indemnity Insurance Contract Construction

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

Parties

Dunlop Haywards (DHL) Limited

Claimant

Erinaceous Commercial Property Services Limited

Claimant

Erinaceous Insurance Services Limited

Appellant/defendant/part 20 Claimant

Lockton Companies International Limited

Part 20 Defendant

MSI Corporate Capital Limited and Others (Excess Insurers)

Intended Part 20 Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is desirable under CPR 19.2(2) to join excess insurers as parties to resolve rectification and construction issues
  2. 2 Whether the excess policy should be rectified to cover all activities of DHL
  3. 3 Whether 'Commercial Property Management activities' includes valuation activities

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge below erred in finding the rectification claim too weak for joinder at the interlocutory stage, given the untested evidence and arguable case that the excess policy was intended to cover DHL for all its activities. The appeal was allowed and the excess insurers were ordered to be joined as parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Excess insurers to be joined as parties to the proceedings
  • Costs reserved