Charles Bellhouse & Anor v Zurich Insurance Plc

At a case management hearing, the court should not determine an application that has not been formally listed where the opposing party has not had a proper opportunity to address it and the available time is insufficient. Provisional views expressed by the judge do not bind the judge who later hears the application. The appropriate course is to direct that the application be listed, while leaving all substantive and jurisdictional issues open.

The claimants brought proceedings against Zurich Insurance Plc concerning insurance coverage for a fire. Following earlier summary judgment and strike-out proceedings, the court ordered the defendant to provide short further particulars of its misrepresentation and contract works exclusion defences.

The claimants later sought further particulars concerning two possible fire causes involving contractors’ equipment, and applied for disclosure of audio recordings under CPR 3.1(m) and/or CPR 31.12. They asked the court to determine the application at a costs and case management hearing, although it had not been listed for determination and the defendant had not prepared substantive submissions on it.

1. The court declined to determine the claimants’ application at the hearing. Although the judge had formed provisional views that there was no breach of the earlier order and that further particulars should nevertheless be provided where the defendant could do so, those views were reached without full argument and did not bind the judge who would hear the application.
2. The court also declined to order immediate disclosure of the two admitted audio recordings. The defendant disputed the court’s jurisdiction to make such an order at that stage, and had not prepared substantive submissions because the application was not listed.
3. The combination of insufficient time and the absence of a properly prepared response meant that procedural fairness required the defendant to have an opportunity to develop its submissions on both the strike-out application and disclosure issue.
4. The application was directed to be listed on the first convenient date before any judge sitting in the London Circuit Commercial Court. That judge was expressly left free to reach a different conclusion on compliance with the earlier order and on the jurisdiction to order disclosure.
5. The judge recorded his regret that the application could not be dealt with at the hearing, and indicated that the circumstances could be relevant to any later costs application.

The judgment records earlier decisions in the same proceedings: the summary judgment and strike-out decision at [2025] EWHC 1416 (Comm), followed by a consequential judgment dated 24 June 2025 at [2025] EWHC 1551 (Comm). The present ruling gave case management directions and did not determine an appeal.