Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that English law does not recognise a Mackay v Dick doctrine of deemed fulfilment, so the sellers could not claim the deposits as debts.
The First Defendant breached conditions precedent in the Policy by failing to notify the insurer and provide information as required. The Second Defendant is entitled to decline indemnity. S.9(2) TPRAI Act 2010 does not assist the Claimant, as her actions were not within the prescribed timeframes and cannot revive lost rights. The Second Defendant is not potentially liable to the Claimant.
Source excerpt
Sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of the Duty of Assured Clause are warranties and conditions precedent, not representations. DS breached these warranties by contracting with Scotbeef on terms not declared to Lonham. Under section 10(2) of the Insurance Act 2015, Lonham is entitled to avoid liability for losses occurring after the breach. The transparency requirements in sections 16 and 17 do not apply as the policy does not attempt to contract out of the statutory protections.
Source excerpt
Lonham Group Ltd v Scotbeef Ltd & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 203 (05 March 2025)
The Court of Appeal held that key insurance policy terms were warranties, not representations, so the insurer was not liable to indemnify for the claim.
Compliance with clause 7.5 is not a pre-condition to the exercise of the option; the option agreement’s structure and wording do not make such compliance necessary for business efficacy or as an obvious implication. Clauses 2 to 4 provide a complete code for exercise and completion of the option, and clause 7.5 is not expressed as a condition precedent.
Source excerpt
Where a party's breach prevents fulfilment of a condition precedent to the accrual of a debt, and the contract does not indicate a contrary intention, the condition is treated as fulfilled or dispensed with, and the debt accrues. The Sellers are entitled to recover the deposits in debt, not merely damages.
Source excerpt
King Crude Carriers SA & Ors v Ridgebury November LLC & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 719 (27 June 2024)
The Court of Appeal held that buyers who breached their duty to enable escrow accounts could be sued for the undeposited sums in damages, not debt.
RS Luxembourg II, SARL & Anor v Deburo Real Estate Holding GmbH [2024] EWHC 1515 (Comm) (21 June 2024)
Commercial Court judgment on a guarantee claim turned on whether a loan-to-value condition precedent was met and whether missing valuations could be ignored.
The High Court held that strict contractual valuations were required for a loan-to-value condition in a guarantee, but later amendment could cure an initially defective claim.
The High Court dismissed an appeal over AXA’s refusal to indemnify under a liability policy, holding the documents request clause was a condition precedent breached by Deloittes’ failure to provide key records.
Explore more
