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 benefit under the policy because, although medically fit for some part-time sedentary work, he was unable to follow any occupation without structured rehabilitation and support, which was not provided. The insurer's failure to provide such support meant the incapacity was deemed to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 712 (QB)
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) Contract/insurance Dispute / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant. Defendant to pay damages and 90% of claimant's costs, indemnified by the Part 20 defendant. Stay on capital payment pending appeal, but monthly benefit payments to continue.
Legal Topics
Disability Insurance, Employment Termination, Interpretation of Insurance Policy Terms, Damages for Breach of Contract, Indemnity Claims
Contract Law Employment Law Insurance Law Disability Insurance Employment Termination Interpretation of Insurance Policy Terms Damages for Breach of Contract Indemnity Claims

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 2 Authorities cited 2 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) Contract/insurance Dispute / 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 benefit under the policy because, although medically fit for some part-time sedentary work, he was unable to follow any occupation without structured rehabilitation and support, which was not provided. The insurer's failure to provide such support meant the incapacity was deemed to continue. The defendant was in breach of contract in terminating employment and ceasing benefits, and the insurer was liable to indemnify the defendant for damages owed to the claimant.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant. Defendant to pay damages and 90% of claimant's costs, indemnified by the Part 20 defendant. Stay on capital payment pending appeal, but monthly benefit payments to continue.

Orders

  • Judgment for claimant in the sum of £153,414.98, payable in 14 days (capital sum stayed pending appeal)
  • Defendant to pay 90% of claimant's costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed