The defendant insurers appealed against refusal of summary judgment in its favour in defending a claim under a policy. The claimants premises had been burgled. The insurer said that the claimant had failed to respect warranties given by it as to security. The insurers had said they were conditions, breach of which suspended the cover. They judge had rejected that argument.
Held: The appeal failed. To be treated as warranties, the provisions had to be clear, and the claimants ad a proper argument that the provisions were not clear: ‘The Claimant has a real prospect of successfully contending that its interpretation gives the Policy a more reasonable commercial meaning and one more likely to be that intended by the parties, by limiting the ‘protections provided for the safety of the insured property’ to those in the Original Proposal, and any burglar alarm system within the BAMW to a burglar alarm stated in the Schedule and which was approved by the Defendants, and by limiting the Warranties, as the Judge was inclined to do, to defects within the knowledge or reasonably capable of being within the knowledge of the Claimant and its agents.’
Wilson, Etherton, Sullivan LJJ
 EWCA Civ 1098,  Lloyds Rep IR 301
England and Wales
Cited – F L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tools Sales Limited HL 4-Apr-1973
The parties entered an agreement to distribute and sell goods in the UK. They disagreed as to the meaning of a term governing the termination of the distributorship.
Held: The court can not take into account the post-contractual conduct or . .
Cited – Pratt v Aigaion Insurance Company SA (‘the Resolute’) CA 27-Nov-2008
The court considered the interpretation of a term in a contract of insurance to the effect that ‘Warranted Owner and/or Owner’s experienced skipper on board and in charge at all times and one experienced crew member.’, asking whether ‘at all times’ . .
Approved – Easyair Ltd (T/A Openair) v Opal Telecom Ltd ChD 2-Mar-2009
The court considered an application for summary judgment.
Held: Lewison J set out the principles: ‘the court must be careful before giving summary judgment on a claim. The correct approach on applications by defendants is, in my judgment, as . .
Cited – ICI Chemicals and Polymers Ltd v TTE Training Ltd CA 13-Jun-2007
The Defendant had applied for summary judgment under CPR Part 24. One argument was a short point of construction. The Judge suggested the parties agree that he should decide the point as a preliminary issue. They were unwilling so he proceeded on . .
Cited – Bhayani and Another v Taylor Bracewell Llp IPEC 22-Dec-2016
Distinction between reputation and goodwill
The claimant had practised independently as an employment solicitor. For a period, she was a partner with the defendant firm practising under the name ‘Bhayani Bracewell’. Having departed the firm, she now objected to the continued use of her name, . .
See Also – AC Ward and Son Ltd v Catlin (Five) Ltd and Others ComC 3-Dec-2009
Cited – CXZ v ZXC QBD 26-Jun-2020
Malicious Prosecution needs court involvement
W had made false allegations against her husband of child sex abuse to police. He sued in malicious prosecution. She applied to strike out, and he replied saying that as a developing area of law a strike out was inappropriate.
Held: The claim . .
Cited – HRH The Duchess of Sussex v Associated Newspapers Ltd ChD 11-Feb-2021
The claimant complained that the defendant newspaper had published contents from a letter she had sent to her father. The court now considered her claims in breach of privacy and copyright, and her request for summary judgment.
Held: Warby J . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 February 2021; Ref: scu.377305