Issue 2: actions of a “ competent authority ”
Issue 2: actions of a “competent authority”
Issue 2 asks:
“Are the actions of the British Horseracing Authority and/or Greyhound Board of Great Britain actions of competent authorities for the purposes of the Denial of Access Cover?”
The defined term “Denial of Access Cover” here is a reference to the extension to the BI insurance for what might generically be called denial of access to the premises. As set out above, limb (b) responds to “action by the Police Authority and/or the Government or any local Government body or any other competent authority”. The issue between the parties is whether the actions of the BHA and the GBGB qualify as the actions of “any other competent authority”, such that, if it resulted in prevention or hindering of use, there would be an insured risk, or a “trigger event” (see further below).
This is important because it has the potential to feed into the number of losses and the operation of the “per loss” limits.
- 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
![CL-2023-000064 - [2025] EWHC 1870 (Comm)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_WAai98v.png)