Beecham Peacock Solicitors LLP v (Enterprise Insurance Company Plc & Ors
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- His Honour Judge Behrens sitting as a Judge of the High Court in Leeds
Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Insurance Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
BPL, claiming as successor to BPS, seeks to recover disbursements from three insurance companies under CFAs and ATE policies. The insurers argue BPS lacked privity of contract and breached disclosure regulations. The court found potential contractual rights and realistic prospects under the 1999 Act for some claims, while rejecting applications for subrogation, restitution, and striking out. Relief from sanctions was granted due to mutual breaches and external complications, allowing the case to proceed.
Judge Behrens :
Introduction
The Claimant (“BPL”) is a limited liability partnership. It is a successor practice of Beecham Peacock Solicitors (“BPS”) and as I understand it has assumed the rights and liabilities of that firm.
The First and Third Defendants are insurance companies trading out of Gibraltar. The Second Defendant is an insurance company trading out of the Isle of Man. All 3 insurers of underwriting after the event legal insurance (“ATE policies”).
BPS acted for a number of clients in respect of personal injury actions that failed. In each case it entered into a Conditional Fee Agreement (“CFA”) with the client. In each case the client entered into an ATE policy with one or other of the Defendants.
In these proceedings BPL seeks to recover legitimately incurred disbursements incurred on behalf of its clients. The sums involved are significant. The total claim is £221,171.95 claimed as to £145,668.78, £47,081.73 and £28,421.44 from the First, Second or Third Defendants.
The principal application before the Court is an application to strike out the claims on two main grounds. First it is said that as BPS was not a party to the insurance policies it has no right of action against the insurers. Second it is said that in breach of reg 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (“ the 2000 Regulations ”) BPS failed to disclose its interest in recommending the contract of insurance.
BPL seeks to meet these arguments in a number of ways. First it is contended that there is a direct right of action against the insurer. This is either as a result of a direct contract or by subrogation or restitution. If there is no direct right of action there is an application to join each of the lay clients as parties. Second it is said that there is no breach of reg 4(2)(e)(ii).
In so far as the claim is not struck out there are a number of applications to be dealt with.
Summary Judgment/Strike out
The principles applicable are summarised in the judgment of Lewison J (as he then was) in Easy Air Limited v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339
i) The court must consider whether the claimant has a "realistic" as opposed to a "fanciful" prospect of success: Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91 ;
ii) A "realistic" claim is one that carries some degree of conviction. This means a claim that is more than merely arguable: ED & F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472 at [8];
iii) In reaching its conclusion the court must not co