Is there a right to inspect a defendant’s liability insurance, ask Rawdon Crozier & Anthony Eskander
In XYZ v Various [2013] EWHC 3643 (QB), [2013] All ER (D) 278 (Nov) nearly 1,000 women who had undergone breast implant surgery were seeking damages from private hospitals for supplying them with defective implants, manufactured by a French company, PIP. The claimants’ case was that the implants were of unsatisfactory quality in breach of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, s 4(2)
The claimants were concerned as to whether one defendant, Transform Medical Group (CS) Ltd (Transform), could meet a judgment and made an application under Pt 18 seeking disclosure of the relevant insurance policies. They sought the same relief under CPR 3.1(2)(m).
Pt 18 application
The claimants submitted that Pt 18 was broad enough to encompass information concerning the extent of a party’s insurance cover because it was a relevant issue in the proceedings.
Mrs Justice Thirlwall was faced with two conflicting authorities as to the ambit of Pt 18: Harcourt v Griffin [2007] EWHC 1500 (QB) and West London Pipeline and Storage v
