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.

The Technology and Construction Court in England has refused pre-action disclosure of the insurance policy of a currently solvent insured, notwithstanding that a successful claim would have resulted in the insolvency of the insured.

Factual background

In a judgment handed down on 17 March 2017 (but which has only recently become publicly available) in Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio,1 Mr Justice Teare held that an After The Event (ATE) insurance policy put before the court in purported satisfaction of a security for costs order, was not in a reasonably satisfactory form.

A recent decision in the High Court has seen an application for pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy dismissed because the defendant was not insolvent.

Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company owned a warehouse that was damaged by a fire caused by Dornoch. They argued that their claim was highly likely to win but that, if it did, it would cause Dornoch to become insolvent.

Peel Port therefore sought ‘pre-action disclosure’, meaning Dornoch would have to disclose applicable insurance cover information to Peel Port before they decided whether to proceed.

Court refuses application for pre-action disclosure of insurance policy

The High Court has refused an application for pre-action disclosure of the public liability insurance policy of a company that, if litigation were pursued against it, was likely to become insolvent.

Background

There have been a number of cases in recent years in which a party has sought to utilise the provisions of the CPR in order to obtain information on the opposing party's insurance arrangements, rather than waiting for that party to go insolvent in order to use the procedures provided by the Third Parties Rights Act 1930 or 2010. The recent case of Peel Port Shareholder Finance Co v Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) looks at this again in light of the discretion which Judges have under CPR31.16 for applications for pre-action disclosure and attempts to shut the door on such actions.

When reviewing a security for costs application under CPR 25.12, the courts are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between an impecunious claimant’s access to justice and the possibility of a successful defendant being unable to recover their costs. This is because the general rule in relation to costs under CPR 44.2 is that the unsuccessful party will pay the costs of the successful party.

Whether third party claimant entitled to pre-action disclosure of currently solvent insured's insurance policy

This case arose from an underlying claim by a company called Mploy against Denso, which resulted in an adverse costs order against Mploy.

To start, let me introduce some familiar characters. First, an impecunious claimant who has the benefit of after the event (ATE) insurance, but the disadvantage of an incompetent solicitor. Second, a successful defendant with the benefit of a costs order and a final costs certificate, but the disadvantage of a slippery ATE insurer who has avoided the claimant’s ATE policy because of failures by the aforesaid incompetent solicitor. Different ways around this problem have been tried, and generally failed.