Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Insurance
CLAIMANT'S CLAIM AGAINST INSURER FAILS: THE INSURED'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT

CLAIMANT’S CLAIM AGAINST INSURER FAILS: THE INSURED’S FAILURE TO NOTIFY WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT

April 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

Today we are looking at a case where the court considered the impact of The Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 in detail.  The court decided that the insurer was not liable to indemnify a claimant who had been…

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION WHEN A DEFENDANT IN A PI CASE WILL NOT PAY: LOOK AT YOUR OWN CLIENT'S HOME INSURANCE POLICY

A POSSIBLE SOLUTION WHEN A DEFENDANT IN A PI CASE WILL NOT PAY: LOOK AT YOUR OWN CLIENT’S HOME INSURANCE POLICY

September 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Damages, Enforcement, Insurance, Members Content

I am repeating something that has appeared in this blog twice already.  However it is a topic that that has featured in recent legal discussions on Twitter.  That is the use of your own client’s home insurance policy to recover damages…

YOU'VE STARTED SO YOU'LL FINISH: MASTER SETS ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE SERVED BY INSURER

YOU’VE STARTED SO YOU’LL FINISH: MASTER SETS ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE SERVED BY INSURER

August 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Insurance, Members Content

In Advantage Insurance Co Ltd v Stoodley & Anor [2018] EWHC 2135 (QB) Master Davison set aside the claimant’s notice of discontinuance made after reading the defendant’s  additional written submissions after a hearing.  The notice of discontinuance was viewed as “tactical….

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY AFTER THE EVENT PREMIUM OF £533,017.13 : EYE-WATERING DECISION FOR INSURERS

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY AFTER THE EVENT PREMIUM OF £533,017.13 : EYE-WATERING DECISION FOR INSURERS

November 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Insurance, Insurance premiums, Members Content

In Percy v Anderson-Young [2017] EWHC 2712 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer held that an after the event premium of £533,107.13 was recoverable. There was no sympathy for the defendant.   “… in my judgment, any sympathy for the Defendant here…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: RECOVERABILITY OF PREMIUMS & PROPORTIONALITY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: RECOVERABILITY OF PREMIUMS & PROPORTIONALITY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

November 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Insurance, Insurance premiums, Members Content

In Peterborough & Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust v McMenemy & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1941 the Court of Appeal considered the position in relation to the payment of insurance premiums in clinical negligence cases. The Court decided that it is appropriate…

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: NOT GRANTED WHEN THE PURPOSE WAS TO SEEK DETAILS OF DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE COVER

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: NOT GRANTED WHEN THE PURPOSE WAS TO SEEK DETAILS OF DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE COVER

April 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Disclosure, Members Content

In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd-v- Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) Mr Justice Jefford refused an application for pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy. There is an interesting discussion of the scope of pre-action disclosure and the interrelationship…

SUING THE "MAN OF STRAW":  WHY YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN CLIENT'S INSURANCE BEFORE GIVING UP ON A PERSONAL INJURY CASE

SUING THE “MAN OF STRAW”: WHY YOU NEED TO CHECK YOUR OWN CLIENT’S INSURANCE BEFORE GIVING UP ON A PERSONAL INJURY CASE

January 29, 2017 · by gexall · in Enforcement, Members Content, Useful links

There was recently some comment, and quite a few readers, of a post on “suing the man of straw”. This was the second post ever on this site.  There were comments on Twitter that people were surprised by the post…

INSURANCE, FUNDING AND LITIGATION: INSURERS HAD TO PAY SOLICITORS

January 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is an interesting judgment by Stuart Brown QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16). The judgment is available here nesbitjudgment A judgment on…

THE THIRD PARTIES (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) ACT 2010 1: 5 INITIAL POINTS

May 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Insolvency, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

The Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 is shortly to come into force. Here are 5 key points. Here we look at the implementation date, legislative history and basic definitions of the Act. A BRIEF OVERVIEW The Act allows…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 86: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND DEFENCE ON THE MORNING OF TRIAL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: ANOTHER CASE WHERE (MIS) SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM LED TO GRIEF
  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.