Impact Funding Solutions Ltd v Barrington Support Services Ltd & Anor
Decision date: 3 February 2015
Neutral citation: [2015] EWCA Civ 31
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: medium
This appeal concerned whether solicitors' professional indemnity insurers (AIG) were obliged to indemnify Barrington for sums it was ordered to repay to Impact, a company that advanced loans to Barrington's clients to meet disbursements. The material issue was whether an exclusion for "trading or personal debt" or "breach of contract ... for the supply to, or use by, any insured of goods or services" (clause 6.6(b) of the Minimum Terms) excluded AIG's liability. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered judgment against AIG for the sum for which Barrington was found liable.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: medium
The exclusion in clause 6.6(b) did not apply to make AIG liable to deny indemnity because the loans and related services were provided to Barrington's clients (not to Barrington), and services provided to a solicitor as part of performing obligations to clients are not intended to fall within the "Debts and Trading Liabilities" exclusion in the Minimum Terms.
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: medium
The court observed that authorities concerning VAT supplies were of limited assistance in construing the insurance exclusion and should not be taken as establishing general rules applicable to professional indemnity insurance.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from selected parts of a longer judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted from the judgment, which may omit detailed factual findings and reasoning relied on by the court.