Commercial Disputes Weekly – Issue 2436 May 2025

Insurance
A public liability insurer has been held not liable for a claim under a policy brought by a third party due to non-compliance with its terms. The claim was for personal injury caused by door supervisors of a bar. The public liability insurance was for the employer of the door supervisors who had caused the injuries and for which the employer was vicariously liable. After the employer went into liquidation, the claimant brought a claim against the insurer under the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. The policy required claims to have been notified within a certain time period and it was a condition precedent to the insurer’s liability. This had not been done. As a result, the insurer was entitled to refuse indemnity under the policy.
Makin v Protec Security Group Ltd [2025] EWHC 895 (KB), 11 April 2025

Property
The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has discharged a covenant on land on the basis that it was obsolete under section 84(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. The covenant was imposed on the land when it was separated from his land by Mr Warfield and sold off. The covenant required any house built on the land to have the plans subject to the vendor, Mr Warfield, for his reasonable approval in advance. Mr Warfield died in 1992 and the new owner of his land objected to removal of the covenant. The tribunal concluded that as a matter of construction of the wording used, the covenant related only to Mr Warfield himself and did not pass to his successors in title. It could therefore be removed as being obsolete.
Ball v Fulton [2025] UKUT 135 (LC), 24 April 2025

Security for Costs
Mr Jones obtained summary judgment against unknown parties on his claim for deceit and unjust enrichment in relation to bitcoin belonging to him, including an order that a particular wallet had been used to store fraudulently obtained bitcoin, including that belonging to Mr Jones. Kyrrex objected to the conclusions reached in relation to the wallet and sought to set aside the summary judgment. Mr Jones applied for security for costs. The court concluded that it was unable to order security for costs against Kyrrex, who was a third party to the proceedings. The proceedings were in substance an interlocutory action rather than originating proceedings.
Jones v Persons Unknown [2025] EWHC 977 (Comm), 29 April 2025

Landlord and Tenant
A tenant of a flat has successfully appealed a decision of the First-Tier Tribunal in relation to a service charge that had been demanded from the tenant for work done to the exterior of his building. The decision was set aside on the basis that it had not been properly explained. The Upper Tribunal recognised that courts and tribunals are under pressure of time and provided some guidance on the key points a decision should contain.
Garden Quarter (Caversfield) Management Co Ltd v Ortet [2025] UKUT 133 (LC), 23 April 2025

Should you wish to discuss any of these cases in further detail, please speak with a member of our London dispute resolution team below, or your regular contact at Watson Farley & Williams: