The First Defendant had insurance cover in place with the Second Defendant, Axa Insurance UK Plc. The Second Defendant joined in the proceedings commenced by the Claimant to protect its position as insurer of the First Defendant.

Part of these proceedings involved claims for declarations of entitlement to indemnity from the Second Defendant under the Third Parties (rights Against Insurers) Act 1930. In that context, a number of issues arose for determination.

The following points were tried as preliminary issues:

1.       Whether the First Defendant was in breach of the claims co-operation clause(s) in the insurance policy.

2.       Whether compliance with the claims co-operation clause(s) was a condition precedent to the Second Defendant's liability to indemnify the First Defendant under the insurance policy.

3.       Whether the Second Defendant was entitled to decline to indemnify the First Defendant as a result of any breaches of the claims co-operation clause(s).

The determination: As a matter of construction, the Judge accepted the established doctrine that policies are to be construed "contra proferentes" against the insurance company. In relation to each of the specific preliminary issues, he held that:

1.       The First Defendant was not in breach of the claims co-operation clauses in the insurance policy, because the First Defendant ultimately complied with the requirement relating to the delivery of relevant documents to the Second Defendant.

2.       Because there was no time limit set out in the claims co-operation clause(s), a term had to be implied to give business efficacy to the policy, i.e. that the insured First Defendant would do the things required of it by way of notification/co-operation within a reasonable time. Compliance with the claims co-operation clause(s) was a condition precedent to the Second Defendant's liability to indemnify the First Defendant under the insurance policy.

3.       Whilst the claims co-operation clause(s) operated as a condition precedent to the Second Defendant's liability, as the relevant documents were ultimately brought to the attention of the Second Defendant (within what was held to be a reasonable time on the facts of this particular case) it followed that the First Defendant was not in breach of the claims co-operation clause(s) and the Second Defendant was not entitled to rely on these clauses to decline to indemnify the First Defendant.