The Claimants were the residents of a housing estate who applied for a Group Litigation Order to pursue their claim of nuisance and negligence against a waste contractor. The Defendant requested the disclosure of their ‘after the event’ insurance policy as a condition of the GLO.
Held: The policy was disclosable both under CPR31.14 and under the court’s case management powers. This was an exception to the traditional approach that insurance policies are private as between the insured and insurer and thus not disclosable.
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 1033 (TCC)
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No.2) TCC 2-Oct-2009
. .
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd (No 3) TCC 19-Apr-2011
The claimants sought damages in nuisance saying that the defendant’s waster recycling plant was causing odorous pollution of their nearby homes. . .
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd [No 4] TCC 19-Apr-2011
. .
See Also – Barr and Others v Biffa Waste Services Ltd CA 19-Mar-2012
The claimants appealed against rejection of their claims for nuisance in the form of smells emanating from the respondent neighbour’s waste processing plant. The defendant relied upon the grant of planning permission.
Held: The cause of action . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Litigation Practice, Costs
Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347142