Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd

Decision date: 18 October 2018

Neutral citation: [2018] EWCA Civ 2403

Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

Insurance classification confidence: high

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary, or obiter dicta summary on this page is AI-generated. It is provided solely to help users assess possible relevance and may be inaccurate or incomplete. It is not legal advice. Users should read the original judgment and obtain appropriate legal advice before relying on any summary.

Short overview

A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this overview: high

This was an application by Millennium for permission to appeal a TCC judgment that Wheeldon was entitled to indemnity after a fire; Millennium relied on alleged breaches of policy conditions precedent. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal, holding that the CPR r.52.6(1) test applies and observing that challenges to trial findings of fact and expert assessment in TCC cases will rarely succeed.

Ratio decidendi

The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.

AI confidence in this ratio summary: high

The applicable test for permission to appeal is CPR r.52.6(1), and appellate courts should generally defer to trial judges on findings of fact and evaluations of expert evidence, so wide-ranging appeals on such matters will rarely have a real prospect of success.

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 judgment may be referred to in other TCC cases for guidance and the court praised the deputy judge’s clear and prompt handling of a complex factual and expert evidence trial.

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; that omission may exclude material reasoning or factual detail relevant to the issues and limits this summary.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML