Share it

On appeal from: [2016] EWCA Civ 367

 

This appeal considered what the true construction of the words ‘in a series of related matters or transactions’ is within the aggregation clause of a professional indemnity insurance policy. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the appeal, stating that ‘in a series of related transactions’ must mean that the transactions are interconnected, but that there was no need for the Law Society to further qualify this with a word such as ‘intrinsic’ which the Court of Appeal had interpreted as being present. The Supreme Court thought the lack of further criteria was unsurprising as the test is already sensitive, and must be judged objectively with the starting point to identify the relevant matter or transactions. In this case, as the transactions related to different development sites, had different investors, and were protected by different trust over different assets, the Court held that the transactions did not meet the test and so should not be aggregated together.

For judgment, please download: [2017] UKSC 18
For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary
For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII

To watch the hearing, please visit: Supreme Court Website (10 Oct 2016 morning session) (10 Oct 2016 afternoon session)