Walton v Airtours Plc [2002] EWHC 712 (QB) (16 January 2002)

Walton v Airtours Plc [2002] EWHC 712 (QB) (16 January 2002)

The claimant was entitled to succeed because, although medically fit for some part-time sedentary work, he was unable to follow any occupation without structured support and rehabilitation, which had not been provided. The policy's test of 'unable to follow any occupation' was not met unless such support was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 712
Parties
Claimant: Walton; Defendant: Airtours Plc; Part 20 Defendant: SunLife Assurance Company of Canada
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 January 2002
Procedural Posture
High Court (queen's Bench Division) Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant; defendant to pay damages and costs, indemnified by the insurer; permission to appeal granted on construction of 'unable to follow any occupation'.
Legal Topics
Disability Insurance, Wrongful Dismissal, Interpretation of Insurance Policy Terms, Damages for Breach of Contract, Indemnity Claims, Costs Orders
Employment Law Insurance Law Contract Law Disability Insurance Wrongful Dismissal Interpretation of Insurance Policy Terms Damages for Breach of Contract Indemnity Claims +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walton

Claimant

Airtours Plc

Defendant

SunLife Assurance Company of Canada

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court (queen's Bench Division) Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was 'unable to follow any occupation' within the meaning of the insurance policy after 24 months of incapacity
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was entitled to terminate the claimant's employment and cease benefit payments
  3. 3 Whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the defendant for damages owed to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant was entitled to succeed because, although medically fit for some part-time sedentary work, he was unable to follow any occupation without structured support and rehabilitation, which had not been provided. The policy's test of 'unable to follow any occupation' was not met unless such support was available. The defendant was liable for damages equivalent to the lost insurance benefits, and the insurer was required to indemnify the defendant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant; defendant to pay damages and costs, indemnified by the insurer; permission to appeal granted on construction of 'unable to follow any occupation'.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant in the sum of £153,414.98, payable within 14 days, subject to a stay on capital sum pending appeal but with monthly benefit payments to continue.
  • Defendant to pay 90% of the claimant's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.