Dilip Desai & Anor v Paul David Wood & Anor

Dilip Desai & Anor v Paul David Wood & Anor

No implied or constructive trust arises over insurance proceeds paid to an insolvent company in respect of a third party claim, absent express provision or statutory assignment. The contract and policy did not require ringfencing or segregation of proceeds for the appellants, and the requirements for implication of a term or trust—necessity, certainty, and intention—were not met. The proceeds remain part of the company's general assets for distribution among creditors.

Parties
Appellant: Dilip Desai; Appellant: Paresh Shah; Respondent: Paul David Wood; Respondent: Neil Frank Vinnicombe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Constructive Trust, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Liquidation, Third Party Rights, Unjust Enrichment
Insolvency Law Contract Law Trusts Law Insurance Law Implied Terms Constructive Trust Professional Indemnity Insurance Liquidation +2 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dilip Desai

Appellant

Paresh Shah

Appellant

Paul David Wood

Respondent

Neil Frank Vinnicombe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether insurance proceeds paid to an insolvent company are held on trust for a third party claimant under an implied or constructive trust
  2. 2 Whether a term should be implied into the contract or insurance policy requiring ringfencing of insurance proceeds for the benefit of the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances give rise to a constructive trust to prevent unjust enrichment

Ratio Decidendi

No implied or constructive trust arises over insurance proceeds paid to an insolvent company in respect of a third party claim, absent express provision or statutory assignment. The contract and policy did not require ringfencing or segregation of proceeds for the appellants, and the requirements for implication of a term or trust—necessity, certainty, and intention—were not met. The proceeds remain part of the company's general assets for distribution among creditors.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; the insurance proceeds belong beneficially to the company and not to the appellants.