The Commercial Court gave judgment yesterday in the BI insurance test case initiated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), whose CEO has said that they “are pleased that the Court has substantially found in favour of the arguments we presented on the majority of the key issues”.
The FCA’s aim in taking these proceedings was to secure clarity on behalf of policyholders about how non-damage business interruption insurance policies should respond following the Coronavirus outbreak and the associated operating restrictions. The sheer breadth of the case – eight insurers directly involved, 60 insurers affected, 700 wordings and 370,000 policyholders potentially in scope – suggested from its outset that a binary ‘cover’ or ‘no cover’ outcome looked highly unlikely.
A short piece to highlight some of the complexities of the issues of process reform and that good old chestnut of access to justice. A consumer clearly feels that he did not get the service as a litigant in person (LiP) that he was expecting from his McKenzie friend, Mr Bright (http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/jailed-mckenzie-friend-facing-12000-claim/5058397.article)
One of the issues on the new PM’s agenda is, to put it briefly, how to put claims against the UK armed forces on a different footing so as to cut out speculative actions, thereby preventing time and resource being spent on such cases. Taking this sort of action was a clear commitment in the Conservative 2015 Manifesto: “We will ensure our Armed Forces overseas are not subject to persistent human rights claims that undermine their ability to do their job.”