Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance & Anor v Kroll Advisory Ltd

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance & Anor v Kroll Advisory Ltd

The court found that the four categories of documents sought may well support the claimants’ case regarding the application of clause 6.2 of the settlement agreement and are necessary as they are not available from other sources. The application was not premature, and the construction argument regarding clause 6.2 did not preclude disclosure at this stage. The order would not breach confidentiality obligations as the court’s order would provide sufficient protection.

Parties
Claimant: Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance; Claimant: AXA Insurance Ltd; Defendant: Kroll Advisory Ltd; Respondent: Mr Paul Clark; Respondent: Mr David Whitehouse
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Application / Application for Non Party Disclosure Under CPR 31.17
Outcome
Application for non-party disclosure granted
Legal Topics
Non Party Disclosure, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Settlement Agreements, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Commercial Law Non Party Disclosure Professional Indemnity Insurance Settlement Agreements Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance

Claimant

AXA Insurance Ltd

Claimant

Kroll Advisory Ltd

Defendant

Mr Paul Clark

Respondent

Mr David Whitehouse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Application / Application for Non Party Disclosure Under CPR 31.17

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether non-party disclosure should be ordered under CPR 31.17 against Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are likely to support the claimants' case or adversely affect another party's case
  3. 3 Whether production of the documents is necessary to dispose of the claim or save costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the four categories of documents sought may well support the claimants’ case regarding the application of clause 6.2 of the settlement agreement and are necessary as they are not available from other sources. The application was not premature, and the construction argument regarding clause 6.2 did not preclude disclosure at this stage. The order would not breach confidentiality obligations as the court’s order would provide sufficient protection.

Court Disposition

Application for non-party disclosure granted

Orders

  • Mr Clark and Mr Whitehouse to disclose the four categories of documents sought, subject to interim confidentiality arrangements to be agreed or determined by the court.
  • Claimants to pay Mr Clark’s costs of complying with the order, with all such costs to be costs in the case.