Daniel Makin v The Restaurant Muse Limited & Ors

Daniel Makin v The Restaurant Muse Limited & Ors

The Second Defendant was in breach of Claims Conditions 2 and 3.5 by failing to notify the Third Defendant of the incident and relevant correspondence. Compliance with these Claims Conditions was a condition precedent to the Third Defendant’s liability. Therefore, the Third Defendant was entitled as of right to...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Daniel Makin (by his mother and litigation friend Ms Victoria Barber); First Defendant: The Restaurant Muse Limited; Second Defendant: Protec Security Group Limited; Third Defendant: QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed against Third Defendant
Legal Topics
Third Parties (rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, Notification Clauses, Condition Precedent, Vicarious Liability, Personal Injury, Policy Interpretation
Insurance Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Third Parties (rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 Notification Clauses Condition Precedent Vicarious Liability Personal Injury +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Makin (by his mother and litigation friend Ms Victoria Barber)

Claimant

The Restaurant Muse Limited

First Defendant

Protec Security Group Limited

Second Defendant

QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Second Defendant in breach of the Claims Conditions under the Policy?
  2. 2 If so, did this breach entitle the Third Defendant to refuse cover as of right or merely give a discretion?
  3. 3 Was the Third Defendant entitled to refuse cover on the facts?

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Defendant was in breach of Claims Conditions 2 and 3.5 by failing to notify the Third Defendant of the incident and relevant correspondence. Compliance with these Claims Conditions was a condition precedent to the Third Defendant’s liability. Therefore, the Third Defendant was entitled as of right to refuse indemnity under the policy, and the Claimant’s claim fails under the 2010 Act.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed against Third Defendant

Orders

  • Third Defendant not liable to indemnify Claimant under the policy pursuant to the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010
  • Parties invited to agree consequential order