McGeown v District Travel Insurance: CA 12 Nov 2003

The claimant had holiday insurance protecting him against ‘any permanent disability which prevents you from doing all your usual activities’ She was injured in a road traffic accident, losing an eye.
Held: Before a court could judge wording ambiguous, it had first to look at the context. The judge had concluded that the words ‘all your usual activities’ were ambiguous, but he should first have used permissible aids to construction, including identifying the commercial purpose of the document. Nor were the words a stand-alone provision. This provision was intended to provide a similar level of protection to the adjacent clauses, and the contra preferentem rule was inapplicable.


Auld LJ, Mummery LJ, Keene LJ


Times 27-Nov-2003


England and Wales


CitedInvestors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society HL 19-Jun-1997
Account taken of circumstances wihout ambiguity
The respondent gave advice on home income plans. The individual claimants had assigned their initial claims to the scheme, but later sought also to have their mortgages in favour of the respondent set aside.
Held: Investors having once . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.188380