Citibank NA v Excess Insurance Co Ltd: 1999

A section 51 application was prompted by the reporting of the Chapman case, and decided by Thomas J specifically upon the basis that the continued defence of the quantum of the claim after judgment on liability had been conducted by the insurers solely in their own interests, after the insured’s interest in protecting its reputation had been terminated by the adverse judgment on liability. It was another case in which the claim fell within the cover, but the policy limit left the insured’s costs liability uninsured.
Thomas J said: ‘The decision in Chapman has laid down clear principles that a court can apply. If the circumstances are such that the application for a costs order falls within those principles, then it should follow that there should be a costs order under section 51; if they do not, they should not. To my mind, the principles have been formulated in such a way that the cases that fall within them will be exceptional across the spectrum of litigation and thus the primary approach of the court should be to consider whether the principles set out have been satisfied.’


Thomas J


[1999] 1 Lloyd’s Rep IR 122


Supreme Court Act 1980 51


England and Wales


AppliedTGA Chapman Limited; Benson Turner Limited v Christopher and Sun Alliance and London Insurance Plc CA 8-Jul-1997
A section 51 application was made because the cover was limited under the defendant’s liability policy and insufficient to pay all the damages, let alone any part of the costs, and the defendant was not worth powder and shot. Nonetheless the claim . .

Cited by:

CitedTravelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ SC 30-Oct-2019
Challenge to the making of a non-party costs order under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against the product liability insurer of one of the defendants in litigation being managed under a Group Litigation Order (‘GLO’). Many of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.676820