London & Quadrant Housing Trust & Anor v WPHV Ltd (in administration) & Ors

London & Quadrant Housing Trust & Anor v WPHV Ltd (in administration) & Ors

Application for disclosure guidance was premature and inappropriate as no significant difference of approach had materialised; determination of privilege issues requires a formal application after privilege is asserted; costs to be borne by claimants at 75% of assessed amount to reflect case management utility.

Parties
Claimant: London & Quadrant Housing Trust; Claimant: Quadrant Construction Services Ltd; Defendant: WPHV Ltd (In Administration); Defendant: Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Be Living Group Ltd; Defendant: Walsworth Ltd; Defendant: Hardwicke Investments Ltd; Defendant: Willmott Dixon Ltd; Defendant: Be Living Holdings Ltd; Defendant: Chubb European Group Ltd; Defendant: Chubb European Group SE; Defendant: CNA Insurance Company Ltd; Defendant: Axis Specialty Europe SE; Defendant: Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) DAC; Defendant: MS Amlin Corporate Member Ltd; Defendant: American International Group UK Ltd; Defendant: Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd; Defendant: Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate No. 2786 EVE; Defendant: The Underwriting Members of Lloyd’s Syndicate No. 1861 ATL for the 2019 Year of Account; Defendant: Flectat 2 Ltd (formerly Amtrust Corporate Member Ltd) for and on behalf of Syndicate 1206; Defendant: The Underwriting Members of Lloyds Syndicate 4711 subscribing to X0A1FCE17A0S; Defendant: Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate No. 2003 XLC; Defendant: Liberty Corporate Capital Ltd; Defendant: Markel International Insurance Company Ltd; Defendant: Amtrust Europe Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Application / Case Management Conference; Application for Disclosure Guidance
Outcome
Application for disclosure guidance dismissed; costs summarily assessed and claimants ordered to pay 75% of assessed costs to defendants.
Legal Topics
Disclosure Guidance, Privilege, Third Parties (rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Disclosure Guidance Privilege Third Parties (rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 Costs Assessment

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

Claimant

Quadrant Construction Services Ltd

Claimant

WPHV Ltd (In Administration)

Defendant

Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Be Living Group Ltd

Defendant

Walsworth Ltd

Defendant

Hardwicke Investments Ltd

Defendant

Willmott Dixon Ltd

Defendant

Be Living Holdings Ltd

Defendant

Chubb European Group Ltd

Defendant

Chubb European Group SE

Defendant

CNA Insurance Company Ltd

Defendant

Axis Specialty Europe SE

Defendant

Allied World Assurance Company (Europe) DAC

Defendant

MS Amlin Corporate Member Ltd

Defendant

American International Group UK Ltd

Defendant

Endurance Worldwide Insurance Ltd

Defendant

Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate No. 2786 EVE

Defendant

The Underwriting Members of Lloyd’s Syndicate No. 1861 ATL for the 2019 Year of Account

Defendant

Flectat 2 Ltd (formerly Amtrust Corporate Member Ltd) for and on behalf of Syndicate 1206

Defendant

The Underwriting Members of Lloyds Syndicate 4711 subscribing to X0A1FCE17A0S

Defendant

Lloyd’s Underwriter Syndicate No. 2003 XLC

Defendant

Liberty Corporate Capital Ltd

Defendant

Markel International Insurance Company Ltd

Defendant

Amtrust Europe Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Case Management Conference; Application for Disclosure Guidance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disclosure guidance under Practice Direction 57AD paragraph 11 is appropriate at this stage
  2. 2 Whether defendants may assert privilege over documents evidencing notification to insurers
  3. 3 Effect of Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 on privilege

Ratio Decidendi

Application for disclosure guidance was premature and inappropriate as no significant difference of approach had materialised; determination of privilege issues requires a formal application after privilege is asserted; costs to be borne by claimants at 75% of assessed amount to reflect case management utility.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure guidance dismissed; costs summarily assessed and claimants ordered to pay 75% of assessed costs to defendants.

Orders

  • Application for disclosure guidance dismissed.
  • Claimants to pay 75% of defendants' summarily assessed costs.