CH-2025-000032 - [2025] EWHC 2988 (Ch)

Fecha: 13-Nov-2025

Alleged breaches of Conduct of Business Rules

(b)

Alleged breaches of Conduct of Business Rules

80.

A number of breaches of Conduct of Business Rules (“COBS”) are asserted against Prudential as follows.

81.

COBS 2.1: An alleged failure to act honestly, fairly and professionally and in accordance with the Claimant’s best interests by adding medical and subsequently travel loadings causing increased and miscalculated premia, unauthorised deductions and unjustified administrative charges (paragraph 27a).

82.

COBS 2.2A: a failure to disclose relevant information before providing services in good time prior to the conclusion of the contract and in comprehensible form. The special terms were sent 9 days prior to the conclusion of the contract (paragraph 27b).

83.

COBS 4.2.1: An alleged failure to ensure that its communication with the Claimant was fair, clear, and not misleading in that there were unfair exclusions by way of ‘Special Terms’ and incorrect and unjustified medical and subsequently travel loadings all of which were unfair, unauthorised, and misleading (paragraph 27c).

84.

COBS 4.5.3: An alleged failure to accurately and always give a fair and prominent indication of the relevant risks and benefits to the Claimant when disclosing the “Special Terms” without prejudice to the Claimant’s assertion that these “Special Terms” were unjustified and the Defendant incorrectly applied medical and subsequently travel loadings (paragraph 27d).

85.

COBS 9.2: an alleged failure to take reasonable steps to ensure that the Claimant’s plan is suitable for the Claimant and consistent with the Claimant’s insurance demands and needs. The Defendant, it is said, added unjustified, unnecessary and disproportionate medical and subsequently travel loadings which were not so suitable (paragraph 27e).

86.

COBS 14: an alleged failure to provide the Claimant with a description of the risks of designated investments (paragraph 27d).

87.

The above breaches are said to give rise to a cause of action under section 138D Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (“FSMA”).

88.

I note that no point is taken at this stage by Prudential, for the purposes of the application before me, as to when COBS came into being (my recollection, which may be wrong, was that it was only in about 2007) nor as to the application of s138D FSMA (which from recollection, and I may be wrong, only into force in about 2013), though prior to that there was a similar provision in section 150 FSMA 2000. Again, a loss of £96,236 is asserted as particularised later in the statement of case.

(c)

alleged breaches of a duty of care

89.

Paragraphs 29 to 32 set out matters on the basis of which a duty of care (and its scope) is said to be owed by Prudential to Mr Dewji.

90.

Paragraph 33 alleges negligence by Prudential in imposing unfair exclusions by way of Special Terms and incorrect and unjustified medical and subsequently travel loadings (which are said to be unfair, unauthorised, not documented, unnecessary and misleading).

91.

Paragraph 34 alleges a breach of the duty of care by Prudential in concealing and/or omitting and/or misrepresenting and misstating facts about loadings to Mr Dewji’s Plan and the reasons why Special Terms were invoked to exclude the waiver of premium benefit.

92.

Paragraph 35 asserts that Prudential misled the Ombudsman by asserting that differences in outcome for various Plans comparing Mr Dewji’s Plan with those of other members of his family were due to a medical loading, caused the Claimant further delay and protract unnecessary losses.

93.

Again the causal loss is said to be £96,236 as particularised later in the statement of case.

94.

The loss of £96,236 is particularised in paragraph 37 and is said to comprise:

(1)

not less than £45,223 being the difference in underwriting charges between Mr Dewji’s policy and that of his younger brother (whose policy was not loaded);

(2)

not less than £51,013 being the difference in the average of life cover charges for Mr Dewji’s two brothers and for Mr Dewji under their relevant plans up to March 2022;

(3)

the accumulation of the amounts in (1) and (2) at the respective fund unit growth rates over the period 2000-2024 (further particularisation to follow disclosure).

(d)

Limitation

95.

A defence of limitation was anticipated and is dealt with as follows (mainly by re-amendment):

(1)

It is accepted that the primary limitation period for all three types of claim (breach of contract, breach of statute and breach of the duty of care) is 6 years (sections 2, 5 and 9 of the Limitation Act 1980) (paragraph 43).

(2)

Reliance is placed upon deliberate concealment under s32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980. It is asserted that facts relevant to the claim had been deliberately concealed by Prudential and/or those acting on its behalf and that the primary limitation period did not begin until on or about 9 August 2021. The facts deliberately concealed are said to be (a) that the plan was subject to travel loading and/or that Prudential applied travel loading and made deductions in respect of that loading and (b) that the increase in Premium was due to travel loading (paragraphs 44-49).

(3)

Reliance is also placed upon s32(1)(c), extension of the limitation period in cases where the action is a claim for the consequences of a mistake. It is said that Mr Dewji mistakenly subscribed for and renewed the Plan on the basis that a travel loading was not applied and that the Defendant made a mistake in applying travel loading as Mr Dewji had not agreed to the same and the application of such loading was in breach of clause 8.3 of the Policy Terms and Conditions. The mistake was said to have been discovered in August 2021 and not, even with reasonable diligence, to have been discoverable before then (paragraphs 50-54).

96.

It is to be noted that there is a tension in the Particulars of Claim. As originally drafted (as Amended Particulars of Claim), the factual assertion was that Prudential had originally applied a loading on medical grounds but had then removed that loading in about 2021 and applied a loading (in the same amount) in respect of travel with retrospective effect. The re-amendments to bring in a case under s32 Limitation Act 1980 proceed on the basis that there had been a travel loading from inception (the travel nature of the loading having been concealed). As I understood Mr Karim, his client was not prepared to drop the earlier allegation.