Thomas Fitzhardinge Gueterbock & Anor v Alexander Dugald Gregory Macphail & Anor

Thomas Fitzhardinge Gueterbock & Anor v Alexander Dugald Gregory Macphail & Anor

The judge correctly found that the trespass was not accidental because Henderson Court, through Mr Harris, was aware of the risk that the basement construction would cross the boundary and recklessly proceeded, making the loss non-accidental under the policy.

Parties
Claimant: Thomas Fitzhardinge Gueterbock; Claimant: Helen Ruth Gueterbock; First Defendant/appellant: Alexander Dugald Gregory MacPhail; Second Defendant: Helen Elizabeth MacPhail; Third Party: Henderson Court Limited; Fourth Party/respondent: Allianz Insurance PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Policy Interpretation, Trespass, Nuisance, Recklessness in Insurance, Indemnity Clauses
Insurance Law Property Law Civil Procedure Policy Interpretation Trespass Nuisance Recklessness in Insurance Indemnity Clauses

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Fitzhardinge Gueterbock

Claimant

Helen Ruth Gueterbock

Claimant

Alexander Dugald Gregory MacPhail

First Defendant/appellant

Helen Elizabeth MacPhail

Second Defendant

Henderson Court Limited

Third Party

Allianz Insurance PLC

Fourth Party/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trespass and nuisance constituted an 'accidental' event under the insurance policy terms
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge applied the correct legal test for 'accident' in the context of insurance indemnity
  3. 3 Whether the judge's factual findings supported a conclusion of recklessness

Ratio Decidendi

The judge correctly found that the trespass was not accidental because Henderson Court, through Mr Harris, was aware of the risk that the basement construction would cross the boundary and recklessly proceeded, making the loss non-accidental under the policy.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed; the insurer is not liable to indemnify under the policy for the trespass and nuisance.