Crown Aluminium Ltd v Northern & Western Insurance Company Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 277 (TCC) (18 February 2011)

Crown Aluminium Ltd v Northern & Western Insurance Company Ltd & Anor [2011] EWHC 277 (TCC) (18 February 2011)

The application for summary judgment or strike out by Camrisk fails because the claims against NWIC and Camrisk cannot be properly separated; there are disputed issues of fact and law that require a trial. CPR 12.8 would prevent entry of default judgment against NWIC in these circumstances, and the interests of justice require both claims to be heard together to avoid inconsistent findings.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 277 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Crown Aluminium Limited; First Defendant: Northern & Western Insurance Company Limited; Second Defendant: Cambridge Risk Advisors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out / Interlocutory Application Before Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Default Judgment, Agency, Variation of Contract, Waiver, Duty of Care
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Summary Judgment Strike Out Default Judgment Agency Variation of Contract Waiver +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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown Aluminium Limited

Claimant

Northern & Western Insurance Company Limited

First Defendant

Cambridge Risk Advisors Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out / Interlocutory Application Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the second defendant (Camrisk) should be summarily dismissed or struck out due to the first defendant (NWIC) being debarred from defending and the claim against NWIC being unopposed.
  2. 2 Whether CPR 12.8 prevents entry of default judgment against NWIC in circumstances of alternative or conditional claims.
  3. 3 Whether the claims against NWIC and Camrisk should be heard together to avoid inconsistent findings.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for summary judgment or strike out by Camrisk fails because the claims against NWIC and Camrisk cannot be properly separated; there are disputed issues of fact and law that require a trial. CPR 12.8 would prevent entry of default judgment against NWIC in these circumstances, and the interests of justice require both claims to be heard together to avoid inconsistent findings.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for summary judgment and/or strike out by Camrisk is refused.
  • Costs to follow the event, subject to further submissions if not agreed.