In Crowden and Crowden v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd[2017] EWHC 2597 (Comm) the Commercial Court found in favour of the Defendant insurer on the disputed construction of an "insolvency" exclusion in a professional indemnity insurance policy.  The case is a useful reminder of the approach which the English Courts take to the construction of exclusions in insurance contracts.  

1. Background

In the latest decision in the long running Pugachevdispute, the High Court considered the effect of five trusts set up by Mr Pugachev, and whether the trusts were shams. Birss J held that he would have been prepared to declare the five trusts shams, but on the true interpretation of the trust documents and considering the powers reserved to Mr Pugachev as protector, all five trusts were, in effect, bare trusts for the benefit of Mr Pugachev.

In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC), Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co Ltd (Peel Port) applied for pre-action disclosure of the defendant's insurance policy under Civil Procedure Rule 31.16. Peel Port was not able to rely on the provisions in Third Party (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 because the defendant was not insolvent. Peel Port argued that it was highly probable that rights against insurers would be transferred to them under the 2010 Act in due course.

Key points

• Care should be taken to ensure that finance documents clearly and specifically set out the intention of the parties.

• Lenders should ensure that charges created in security documents are not invalidated or altered by provisions of other finance documents.

Facts

The facts

A liquidator pursued a claim against a former director of a company, that the transfer of the company’s trading inventory in satisfaction of money owed to the former director was a transaction at an undervalue and/or a preference.

An attempt was made to grant floating charge security over the inventory, which the court found was void as it was granted for existing liabilities, at a time when the company was insolvent, to a connected party.

Key points

• The High Court struck out a claim by a liquidator who had already brought a claim arising from the same facts against the same defendants.

• The court relied on the fact that the economic benefit of pursuing the claim would accrue only to the liquidator.

The Facts

Key Points

• There is a low threshold for the granting of an injunction to prevent the presentation of a winding up petition.

• The challenge against the debt in the statutory demand must be in good faith and have sufficient substance.

The Facts

Key Points

• A binding contract by exchange of email did not arise where parties were simply exploring a potential deal.

• Sale by auction is often appropriate where an asset is difficult to value.

• Where no differential treatment of creditors, unfair harm requires that a decision does not withstand logical analysis.

The Facts

Key Points

• Insurers had no priority rights to collect premiums over the proceeds of a successful action they had insured, as a result of a drafting error.

• The High Court affirmed the general rule that, where a party has contracted for an unsecured right only, the court will not elevate it to a secured status.

The Facts 

Ivey v Crockfords (2017 UKSC 67)

Whilst this is not a trust related case, it is an important one which may have an impact on the trust industry going forward as it sees the Supreme Court fundamentally change the test for dishonesty in English law.