0370 270 6000

Burke v Thornton

7 August 2000
The issues

Disclosure – Credit Hire Claim – Insurance Agreement

The facts

Claimant sued Defendant for damages after a road traffic accident. The claim included credit hire. The Claimant had paid a premium and had entered into an indemnity insurance contract with AA, a company within the credit hire group). AA’s underwriters, A1, paid the hire charges pursuant to the policy after the action had continued for over 51 weeks.

The Defendant applied for disclosure with the master agreement between AA and A1 and between AA and the credit Hire Company. The Claimant contended that the Court had no jurisdiction to make orders against none parties in the Small Claims matter and that moreover, the Claimant was not entitled to go behind AA’s policy.

The decision

The application for disclosure was granted and the case was re-allocated to the fast track. Disclosure was necessary because to refuse the application would put the parties on an unequal footing contrary to Part 1 Rule 11 (2). It was for the Trial Judge to determine whether the agreement was a sham.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up