Charles Bellhouse v Zurich Insurance Plc

Hearing date: Tuesday, 13 May 2025

Date judgment circulated: Monday, 9 June 2025

Date judgment handed down: Wednesday 18 June 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.00 am on Wednesday, 18 June 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

HIS HONOUR JUDGE Hodge KC

His Honour Judge Hodge KC:

I: Introduction

On the afternoon of 9 May 2022 the claimants, Mr and Mrs Bellhouse, insured their home in Chiswick, at 135 Park Road, London W4 3EX, and its contents with the defendant, Zurich Insurance Plc ( Zurich) for the period from 9 May 2022 to 8 May 2023. They did so through insurance brokers, Giles Gowers Insurance Associates ( Giles Gowers). It is common ground that this was a consumer insurance contract for the purposes of the Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012 ( CIDRA). On 29 December 2022, whilst substantial contract works were being carried out to the property, a fire broke out which caused substantial damage to the property and its contents. The claimants made a claim under their home insurance policy. Zurich has purported to avoid liability under the policy, asserting that it would not have entered into the policy of insurance but for a misrepresentation that the claimants had no plans to carry out any major works of renovation, addition or alteration to their home within the next 12 months. Zurich also seeks to rely upon a contract works exclusion from cover under the terms of the policy. By a Part 7 claim form, issued on 8 March 2024, the claimants seek a declaration to the effect that Zurich is obliged under the insurance policy to indemnify them in respect of the claim, together with an indemnity, damages, interest and costs.

II: The litigation

The litigation has proceeded by way of particulars of claim, Zurich's defence and counterclaim (supplemented by a response to a request for further information under CPR 18), the claimants' reply and defence to counterclaim, and (with the permission of HHJ Pelling KC, by order dated 3 October 2024), Zurich's reply to the defence to counterclaim.

This is my considered judgment on an application, issued by the claimants on 3 February 2025, to strike out certain specified paragraphs of both Zurich's defence and counterclaim, and its reply to the defence to counterclaim, under CPR 3.4 (2); and for summary judgment against Zurich on those paragraphs under CPR 24.3. The claimants contend that Zurich has no real prospect of succeeding on those parts of its statements of case; that there is no reason why the disposal of those parts of Zurich's pleaded case should await a full trial of this claim; and that those paragraphs disclose no reasonable grounds for defending the claim or for bringing the counterclaim. The claimants rely on the second witness statement, dated 3 February 2025, of their solicitor, Mr Stephen John Netherway (a partner in Devonshires Solicitors LLP). By a consent order, approved by HHJ Pelling KC and sealed on 20 February 2025, a costs and case management hearing that had been listed to take place on 28 March 2025 has been vacated and is to be re-listed for hearing following the disposal of this application.

Zurich opposes the application. It relies upon witness statements, all dated 28 March 2025, from:

(1) its solicitor, Mr Paul Kenneth Annesley, a partner in Clyde & Co LLP, (his third);

(2) Mr Paul Duddle, a senior market underwriter with Zurich, who initially dealt with Mr Colin Davison (of Giles Gowers) by email and by phone, and who generated the original quote and statement of insurance, emailing them, with the other policy documentation, to Mr Davison, all on 3 May 2022; and

(3) Mr Jonathan Field, a market underwriter with Zurich, with whom Mr Neil Murphy (of Giles Gowers) spoke by telephone on the afternoon of 9 May 2022 about securing a reduction in the quoted premium, who incepted the policy, and who sent the final statement of insurance and policy documentation out to Mr Murphy later that same afternoon.

Zurich also relies upon a signed statement dated 19 September 2024 (but not verified by a statement of truth) made by Mr Adrian Giles, on behalf of Giles Gowers, expressly as a ‘neutral party’.

There is a responsive witness statement from Mr Netherway (his third) dated 11 April 2025.

There is no witness evidence from either of the claimants, or from Mr Colin Davison or Mr Neil Murphy (both of Giles Gowers).

On this application, the claimants are represented by Mr Mek Mesfin (of counsel). He relies upon a 24-page written skeleton argument, dated 7 May 2025. Zurich is represented by Mr Daniel Crowley (also of counsel). He relies upon a 25-page written skeleton argument, together with a short cast list and chronology. In addition to the permanent case management bundle (presently extending to 116 pages), there is an application bundle of some 886 pages. There is a joint agreed authorities bundle, comprising some 31 authorities (statute law, case law, textbooks, the White Book commentary on CPR 24, and the 2009 Law Commission Report (No 319) on Consumer Insurance Law: Pre-Contract Disclosure and Misrepresentation). This extends to some 1,349 pages. In addition, each party has produced a supplementary authorities bundle, comprising an additional four authorities for the claimants and five for Zurich. These add a further 96 and 114 pages respectively to the authorities that are before the court.

The hearing was estimated to last one day. It took place on Tuesday 13 May 2025. Mr Mesfin (for the claimants) addressed me for some 2 ¹/₄ hours in the morning. Mr Crowley (for Zurich) addressed me for some 2 ¹/₂ hours, either side of the luncheon adjournment. Mr Mesfin addressed me in reply for a little under 15 minutes. Both counsel are to be congratulated for the cogency, and vibrancy, of their oral submissions; and for keeping within their respective time allocations.

III: Short conclusion

I am satisfied that, with the exception of one minor aspect of the contract works exclusion defence, and subject to Zurich supplementing its pleadings, this is not an appropriate case for either the grant of summary judgment against Zurich on any part of its pleaded defence, or the striking out any part of its statements of case. Since my judgment will not be determinative of any of the substantive issues between the parties, and there are extremely full and detailed written skeleton arguments, I do not propose to reproduce the submissions of the parties in full. Nor do I need to rehearse the evidence in any great detail since this is all in the form of witness statements on which there has been no cross-examination of any of their makers. I will limit this written judgment to what is strictly necessary to explain the reasons for my decision. That is in accordance with that element of the overriding objective which takes account of the need to allot the court's resources to other cases. But first I must set out the procedural landscape.

IV: The procedural landscape

By CPR 3.4 (2) the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that —

(a) the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending...