Manchikalapati & Ors., R (on the application of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme

Manchikalapati & Ors., R (on the application of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme

A valid claim under the FSCS scheme includes claims integrally connected to the protected liability, not limited to liabilities strictly arising under the contract of insurance. Litigation costs and judgment interest incurred to recover benefits under protected insurance contracts are compensable as they are 'in respect of' the protected liability, meaning sufficiently connected to it. The FSCS's refusal to compensate for costs and interest was unlawful.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Rajendra Manchikalapati and Mrs Sowjanya Manchikalapati; Claimant: Mr Paul Montgomery; Claimant: Mrs Beverley Goldman; Claimant: Mr Bharatkumar Shah and Mr Dineshkumar Shah; Claimant: Mrs Emma C Emin; Claimant: Mr Clive Allen and Miss Jane Whale; Claimant: Mr Sebastian Green as executor of the estate of Ms Wendy Green; Claimant: Mr Stuart Mills; Claimant: Mr Grant Sugarman; Claimant: Mr Michael Kennedy and Adam Trutwein; Claimant: Mr Denis Tarasov; Claimant: Mr Adrian Nicholas Bartlett; Claimant: Miss Sarah Horley; Claimant: Aktimon Limited; Claimant: Mr David A Kraftman; Claimant: Dr Obori Ikpeme; Claimant: Mr Grant Gledhill and Darren Bell; Claimant: Dr Martin and Dr Katherine Spadaro; Claimant: Mr Roger Creber and Mrs Jeanie Creber; Claimant: Mr Syed Adnan Hussain; Claimant: Mr John Martin Dickie and Ms Alexandra Dickie; Claimant: Mr Harold Roberts and Mrs Jane Roberts; Claimant: Ms Anjali Bedi; Claimant: Suchira Tanti Apichart; Claimant: Mr Sayad Asad Hussain and Iram Fatima Husain; Defendant: Financial Services Compensation Scheme
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 August 2022
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review allowed; FSCS decision quashed.
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Policyholder Protection, Compensation Scheme, Building Guarantee Insurance, Judicial Review, Compulsory Insurance, Contractual Liability

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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Rajendra Manchikalapati and Mrs Sowjanya Manchikalapati

Claimant

Mr Paul Montgomery

Claimant

Mrs Beverley Goldman

Claimant

Mr Bharatkumar Shah and Mr Dineshkumar Shah

Claimant

Mrs Emma C Emin

Claimant

Mr Clive Allen and Miss Jane Whale

Claimant

Mr Sebastian Green as executor of the estate of Ms Wendy Green

Claimant

Mr Stuart Mills

Claimant

Mr Grant Sugarman

Claimant

Mr Michael Kennedy and Adam Trutwein

Claimant

Mr Denis Tarasov

Claimant

Mr Adrian Nicholas Bartlett

Claimant

Miss Sarah Horley

Claimant

Aktimon Limited

Claimant

Mr David A Kraftman

Claimant

Dr Obori Ikpeme

Claimant

Mr Grant Gledhill and Darren Bell

Claimant

Dr Martin and Dr Katherine Spadaro

Claimant

Mr Roger Creber and Mrs Jeanie Creber

Claimant

Mr Syed Adnan Hussain

Claimant

Mr John Martin Dickie and Ms Alexandra Dickie

Claimant

Mr Harold Roberts and Mrs Jane Roberts

Claimant

Ms Anjali Bedi

Claimant

Suchira Tanti Apichart

Claimant

Mr Sayad Asad Hussain and Iram Fatima Husain

Claimant

Financial Services Compensation Scheme

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether FSCS must compensate claimants for litigation costs and judgment interest under the Policyholder Protection Scheme
  2. 2 Interpretation of 'in respect of' in the PRA Rulebook and statutory scheme
  3. 3 Whether costs and interest are compensable as protected claims or claims owed under a contract of insurance

Ratio Decidendi

A valid claim under the FSCS scheme includes claims integrally connected to the protected liability, not limited to liabilities strictly arising under the contract of insurance. Litigation costs and judgment interest incurred to recover benefits under protected insurance contracts are compensable as they are 'in respect of' the protected liability, meaning sufficiently connected to it. The FSCS's refusal to compensate for costs and interest was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review allowed; FSCS decision quashed.

Orders

  • Declaratory relief granted in favour of claimants.
  • FSCS decision dated 6 May 2021 rejecting claims for costs and interest quashed.