Harcourt v FEF Griffin & Ors

The court may order disclosure of a defendant’s insurance arrangements under CPR 18.1 where the information is relevant to the efficient and proportionate conduct of the proceedings, even though insurance cover is not itself in dispute. Such orders require caution. The applicant must show a real basis for concern that a realistic award may not be satisfied and that disclosure is necessary to decide whether further litigation would be wasteful. In a personal injury claim involving possible periodical payments, the court and claimant may need to know the actual limit and scope of cover, including its application to damages and costs. Disclosure should not be postponed merely because information about the form of award will be required at a later procedural date.

The claimant, aged 16 at the time of the accident, suffered severe spinal injuries at the defendants’ gymnastics club. Liability had been compromised at 75 per cent of the full value, with damages and costs to be assessed. The claim was expected to be worth several million pounds and substantial further costs were anticipated.

The claimant made a Part 18 request seeking information about the defendants’ insurance, including the limit of cover and whether it applied to periodical payments, lump-sum damages and costs. The defendants resisted disclosure, contending that insurance was a private contractual matter and that any relevant disclosure could await the later stage at which periodical payments would be considered.

1. Application granted. The defendants were ordered to reply to the claimant’s Part 18 request in full.
2. CPR 18.1 should be interpreted reasonably liberally. Its purpose is to ensure that parties have the information needed to deal efficiently and justly with matters in dispute. The rule does not require the information sought itself to be the subject of a live disagreement. It may be used to establish whether such a disagreement exists.
3. The jurisdiction must nevertheless be exercised cautiously. Disclosure of insurance information should not become routine tactical manoeuvring or generate satellite litigation. An applicant must demonstrate a real basis for concern that a realistic award may not be satisfied and that the information is necessary to determine whether further litigation would be useful or wasteful.
4. The reasoning in Re OT Computers [2004] EWCA Civ 653, concerning disclosure of insurance details, supported the conclusion that disclosure could be ordered in an appropriate case.
5. The periodical payments provisions required the court to consider whether periodical payments or a lump sum would better meet the claimant’s needs. That assessment could not properly be made without knowing the nature and extent of the insurance cover, including the actual limit and its application to periodical payments, damages and costs. It was wrong to postpone disclosure merely because the existing directions set a later date for the claimant’s final schedule.
6. The substantial likely award, existing and future costs, and an accidentally disclosed certificate apparently showing only £5 million of cover supplied the necessary real basis for concern. The claimant was therefore entitled to the requested information.