Channon (t/a Channon & Co) v Ward

Decision date: 12 May 2015

Neutral citation: [2015] EWHC 4256 (QB)

Court: High Court (King's Bench Division)

Insurance classification confidence: high

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This case arises from a chartered accountant's claim against his insurance broker after the broker failed to secure professional indemnity cover and third parties obtained judgments against the accountant. The material issue was the evidential burden as to whether, but for the broker's negligence, an insurer would have provided cover for the claims. The judge concluded that, although the claimant must establish a link to a policy in principle, the practical burden of proving that an insurer would have repudiated rests on the broker and that, in the round, the burden should be treated as on the defendant.

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

Where a broker is alleged to have negligently failed to procure insurance, the claimant must demonstrate that there would have been a policy covering the loss, but the burden lies on the broker to prove that an insurer would have repudiated (for example by reliance on exclusions or conditions); in practical terms the court treated the burden as resting on the defendant broker throughout.

Obiter dicta

Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.

AI confidence in this obiter summary: low

No clear obiter dicta can safely be identified from the judgment.

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, so factual and reasoning details and any final dispositional order in that omitted portion are not available for this summary.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML