![CL-2023-000064 - [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions on issues 8 and 8A
Conclusions on issues 8 and 8A
I answer issues 8 and 8A as follows:
a separate loss calculation, each of which will be subject to a limit of £2.5m, should be carried out:
for each relevant measure or action; and
for each facility (i.e. racecourse / golf course / hotel) owned or operated by the Cs, which was affected, as those facilities were divided up for the purposes of the different indemnity periods and different aggregate limits in the Policy; and
the relevant measures or actions are those from sections C2 to C4 of the Amended Particulars of Claim which imposed, or increased to any material degree, restrictions on use of the Cs’ said facilities. Taking the example given in paragraph 206 above, the measures described in subparagraphs 206.1 and 206.2 above would be relevant measures. The reductions in the restrictions in 206.3 would not, but the racecourse moving from tier 3 to tier 4 would qualify.
- Heading
- Sean O'Sullivan KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court)
- The background and the procedural history
- The present issues
- The Policy
- The Spreadsheet
- The correct approach to construing the Policy
- Issue 2: actions of a “ competent authority ”
- Agreed facts
- The Cs’ submissions
- The U/Ws’ submissions
- Relevant authorities
- Discussion
- Issues 8 and 8A: the “any one loss” limit
- The Cs’ submissions
- The U/Ws’ submissions
- Relevant authorities
- Discussion: stage 1 (the BI cover more generally)
- Discussion: stage 2 (loss = loss calculation)
- Discussion: stage 3 (per affected race)
- Discussion: stage 4 (per premises)
- Discussion: stage 5 (relevant measures or actions)
- Conclusions on issues 8 and 8A
- Issue 11: the arbitration clause
- The Cs’ submissions
- The U/Ws’ submissions
- Relevant authorities
- Discussion
- Conclusions