Wales

On 1st June 2026, the Financial Times published an article about Rwanda’s claim for £100m compensation against the UK government over the failed asylum scheme.  This is a compensation for cancelling the previous Conservative’s Government plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda.  The Rwanda Government asked the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague to force the UK to hand over compensation for alleged breaches of the deal to pay Rwanda to house and consider the claims of people who had sought asylum in the UK.   It was Keir Starmer who cancelled the deal and the plan that was struck by the previous Tory predecessor, Rishi Sunak, was ruled unlawful by the UK Supreme Court. The Permanent Court of Arbitration unanimously rejected four of Rwanda’s five claims against the UK and rejected the fifth by majority, with only one Judge dissenting. Rwanda demanded a £50m payment for the second year of the deal and a £50m payment for the third year, with an alternative that the payment for that year be reduced to £10.4m to reflect the date of cancellation.  It also demanded £6m or an apology for breach of the deal.  Only four people ever went to the East African country to have their asylum claim considered and all of them volunteered to accept the offer of up to £3,000 each to have their claim processed. The UK Home Secretary, Ms Mahmood, announced in November changes to the immigration rules to people who will be granted asylum. They will be granted only temporary leave to remain in the UK and perhaps this is the current Government’s means of deterring asylum seekers from coming to the UK.  However, let us not forget that whilst the UK ditched its Rwanda plan, the EU is reviving it.  The Danish Immigration Minister said in August 2025 that sending asylum seekers outside the block has so much traction now and Denmark, Italy and Germany have been among those advocating for centres to be set up in non-EU countries to house people awaiting an asylum decision on repatriation. However, the moves to outsource asylum have suffered legal setbacks across Europe. How many migrants are in the UK? The House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs committee publishes a report on the 23rd  June 2026 on settlement, citizenship and integration. Key findings of the report are that there are significant gaps in official migration data, which makes it difficult for the government to formulate immigration policy or to assess likely impact of government policies. The report states “the most disturbing revelation of this enquiry is that we do not know how many migrants are in the UK… This is a historical problem of data collection and includes an absence of departure records for migrants who have arrived and are due to leave between 2021 and 2026 and is ongoing.” The Home Office migration statistics focus primarily on their arrivals rather than outcomes, so we do not know what happened to the migrants who entered the UK – whether they are employed or use public services. The reports’ final chapter raises concerns about the Home Office capacity to manage existing complexities and to implement future reforms. Additional checks and extension applications will increase workloads for a department that already struggles with backlogs. The Row over Settlement The Home Secretary’s plans to make migrants wait longer before they can permanently remain in the UK are manifestly unfair “and potentially unlawful” said the Lord Committee in the report of 23rd June 2026. The Lords Justice and Home Office Committee stated that the move could damage the UK’s reputation as a destination for highly skilled migrants.  The Lords Committee report said “any retrospective change would be manifestly unfair and may be unlawful towards migrants who have planned their lives around the current system and made significant long-term decisions such as career, housing and family life decisions with the expectation that they would be able to qualify for ILR under the current rules”.  It is understood that Ms Mahmood is ready to press ahead with the plans although there may be concessions to reduce the wait for some migrants such as high earners and those working in public services such as doctors, teachers and nurses.  Madeleine Samption, the Head of Oxford University’s Migration Observatory, said to The Telegraph that “the UK might be seen as an unreliable place to be a migrant and in the future that could have a knock-on effect in attracting people who the UK wants to attract”.  Mike Tapp, the Immigration Minister, told the Lords that the Home Office had been receiving legal advice and was satisfied that the proposed retrospective action was legal, with impact assessments to be published in due course.  The Home Office spokesman said “we will always welcome those that come to this country and contribute to our national life.  But the privilege of living here forever it should be earned, not automatic.” And in a further twist, the Times newspaper published on 26th June 2026 stated that the Immigration Minister, the same Mike Tapp, called for the foreign care workers to be exempt from having to wait 10 years before they can settle, and the Home Secretary was unaware that he had written that piece in the first place. When she asked Keir Starmer to sack him for discussing her immigration policy in the Times, he replied that he would not be intimidated, and defended his decision to give his own view on policy. He said “I am adamant that we must always put country above party politics, and I will continue to so.” What would Andy Burnham do? Mr Dampier writes in the Daily Telegraph of 24th June 2026 that the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, was weighing up plans to either abandon or water down the retrospective reforms of Shabana Mahmood, the Home Secretary, for indefinite leave to remain.  As we recall, plan was to increase the time added to be eligible for ILR from five to ten years, an attempt to correct the errors of the last Conservative Government he says, which opened the borders to an unprecedented wave of immigration, popularly called the “Boriswave.”  Without the reform the Home Office predicted that it will lead to a spike in grants of ILR and would mean that those obtaining ILR would become eligible to benefits such as universal credit, child benefit and access to social housing.  The Home Secretary argued that this could cost the British taxpayer up to £10bn, with other estimates rising to £61bn or more.  However, if Burnham becomes the next Prime Minister and he was to focus “on fairness for migrants over fairness for British people, states the article, then he too will risk a loss of trust with all the consequences that comes with it”.

The landscape of UK recruitment has undergone a permanent structural shift. As domestic talent pools shrink, British businesses are facing severe, persistent technical skills shortages across vital industries like engineering, manufacturing, technology, and renewable energy. Compounding this challenge, successive government reforms—including the elevation of the Skilled Worker baseline to RQF Level 6 and increased salary thresholds — have drastically narrowed traditional recruitment avenues. To bypass these local talent bottlenecks and remain competitive, securing a Home Office Sponsor Licence is no longer a luxury— it is an essential business asset. A sponsor licence is official permission granted by the Home Office to allow your UK business to legally employ or contract foreign nationals. A Licence provides the legal framework required to: Access Global Talent: Tap into highly specialised international skill sets to fill critical vacancies that cannot be sourced domestically; Retain Key Personnel: Sponsor existing eligible workers already within the UK, such as those transitioning from student visas or switching from competitors; and Leverage Shortage Lists: Utilise specialised policy buffers like the Immigration Salary List or the interim Temporary Shortage List to fill targeted below-degree roles essential to industrial growth. While holding a Sponsor Licence can unlock immense commercial value, they must be managed with care – the Home Office require Sponsors to adhere to a strict compliance regime and deviations from this can have serious consequences for the Licence and any sponsored workers. In this article we are going to delve into the core requirements and common pitfalls of the Skilled Worker Licence route - the most frequently utilised licence route – providing a practical roadmap for and companies to understand how to sponsor / employ individuals as Skilled Workers. Core Requirements Your UK business must: Be genuine and operating lawfully in the UK: To satisfy this requirement, the Home Office requires at least four documents from a list set out within Appendix A of the sponsor guidance. These will frequently include corporate UK bank statements from an institution that is both PRA and FCA regulated, HMRC correspondence confirming PAYE and VAT registration (if applicable), a commercial lease agreement and evidence of having employer´s liability insurance in place. Be capable of carrying out its sponsor duties: Sponsors are required to maintain compliance with sponsor duties, including record keeping, monitoring of sponsored workers and maintaining general compliance with all UK employment and immigration laws, as set out in Appendix D of the Sponsor Guidance. Before applying for a Licence, robust HR policies and procedures and compliant right to work systems must be in place for all workers and these must be maintained throughout the life of the Licence. Have appointed appropriate Key Personnel to manage the Licence: There are certain roles which must be filled at the point of submitting the Sponsor Licence application and for the duration of the Sponsor Licence. These roles can be filled by the same person if desired, but cannot be filled by a sponsored worker. They are as follows: Authorising Officer – this role must be filled by the most senior person in charge of recruiting migrant workers.  The Authorising Officer has ultimate responsibility for the Sponsor Licence and for ensuring your company´s compliance with its sponsor duties; Level 1 user – this is the only role with automatic access to the Sponsorship Management System, the online portal through which the Licence is managed and Certificates of Sponsorship (CoS) can be assigned to prospective sponsored workers; Key Contact – this is the person who will be contacted by the Home Office with any questions and updates relating to the Licence. These appointed Key Personnel must be permanently based in the UK, have a clean record in terms of criminal convictions, civil penalties and bankruptcy, and be an employee or an office holder.  At least one Level 1 user must also be a ‘settled worker’ (i.e. be a British citizen or hold permanent residence, or have status under the EU Settlement Scheme).The same individual can fill all roles if desired, but Level 1 users cannot assign a CoS to a close relative or partner. Offer genuine, eligible and skilled work and pay the appropriate salary All licensed sponsors must prove that every job offer is genuine, eligible for sponsorship, skilled to the correct framework level, and paid at or above the legally required salary threshold for the visa route. The Home Office require specific information and evidence about each sponsored vacancy, the suitability of the applicant and how they were identified as the best candidate for this role. Have a direct relationship between the sponsoring company and the worker and the company must not sponsor a role which will involve hiring a worker to a third party to undertake an ongoing or routine role. The Home Office´s Sponsor guidance confirms that where a person is, or will be, working on a contract basis and is being supplied as labour by the Sponsor company to another company, the sponsor must be whoever has full responsibility for all of the duties, functions and outcomes or outputs of the job the worker will be doing. The vacancy will not be eligible for sponsorship if it amounts to the hiring out of the worker to another organisation (a third party) who is not the sponsor to fill a position with them, whether temporary or permanent, regardless of any genuine contract. The vacancy will also not be eligible for sponsorship if the worker will be contracted to undertake an ongoing routine role or to provide an ongoing routine service to a third party who is not the sponsor, regardless of the nature or length of any arrangement between the sponsor and the third party. Self-Sponsorship Sponsor Licence Applications – Common Pitfalls to Avoid Self-sponsorship is a strategic pathway where an overseas entrepreneur or business owner sets up a company in the UK, applies for a sponsor license for that company, and then uses that license to sponsor themselves for a Skilled Worker visa. Self-Sponsorship applications must comply with all of the same requirements as set out above, but they face far greater scrutiny from the Home Office and typically have a particular set of hurdles to overcome. The five most common pitfalls we see include: The Revenue Inflation Trap (Investment Rules) The relatively recent introduction of the investment rules poses a severe hurdle for many entrepreneurs who establish a start-up with the intention of applying for a Sponsor Licence. This rule has been introduced to ensure that sponsored workers´ salaries are paid from genuine business income and not from your workers´ own recycled investment capital. Here’s how it works: Any amount you invest into your company (e.g., £50,000) will be divided by the length of your visa (e.g. 5 years = £10,000/year); That figure will then be added to the minimum gross basic salary you must earn from the company. As a typical example using SOC Code 1111 for senior executives, the rules state those using SOC 1111 must be paid a salary of £80,100 per year, but as you have invested £50,000 into the business, you now must show a salary of at least £88,100 per year (£34,500 + £12,000). High Mandatory Salary Thresholds Recent immigration rule changes have vastly increased the baseline cost of self-sponsorship. The business must prove it is financially viable enough to pay the self-sponsored individual the minimum salary to qualify. Newly formed businesses often cannot demonstrate the immediate, steady cash flow required to sustainably clear these steep salary baselines, leading caseworkers to suspect the business is a shell entity and as above, any capital injected by the worker will be subject to the investment rule, increasing the salary threshold further. The "Genuine Vacancy" Paradox It can be difficult to prove and satisfy the Home Office that a newly founded company has an objective need for your senior vacancy, that your physical presence in the UK is required to fulfil this role and that you are the most suitable candidate for this role. In addition, a company will often need to justify why a start-up requires a highly paid executive before it has hired any regular operational staff or generated significant trading volume.  Caseworkers heavily scrutinise these factors, looking out for whether the job role was created purely to facilitate a visa for the business owner. Robust evidence, including a detailed business plan, is needed to successfully counter such scrutiny. Appointing Independent "Key Personnel" Entrepreneurs based overseas sometimes struggle to know and find suitable, trustworthy, compliant and UK based people to occupy these key personnel roles and manage the strict compliance duties, which the Licence and the sponsored visas will depend upon. Demonstrating Operational or Trading Activity The Home Office will reject applications from companies that exist only on paper or function merely as corporate vehicles. Startups must provide corporate bank accounts regulated by the FCA/PRA, commercial lease agreements for physical business premises, employer liability insurance certificates, and HMRC corporate tax registrations. For a founder outside the UK, opening a UK corporate bank account and securing commercial premises without any long-term UK immigration status can be difficult and cause delays to the necessary corporate set-up activities    

27th January 2026 As the insurance market continues to navigate evolving risks, regulatory frameworks, and geopolitical developments, 2025 has delivered a series of judgments that set important precedents as well as reaffirming established coverage principles. This annual review highlights the key themes emerging from these decisions and their practical implications for those responsible for managing coverage and compliance. The cases reported this year address critical issues such as the interpretation of policy terms, the scope of notification obligations, the application of fair presentation duties and the classification of policy terms under the Insurance Act 2015. They also explore the impact of third-party rights, insolvency considerations, and principles regarding multiple cover when ‘other insurance’ clauses are in play. Collectively, these rulings clarify the boundaries of contractual and statutory duties, reinforce the importance of timely and accurate disclosures, and provide guidance on maintaining coverage integrity in complex scenarios. This round-up aims to equip policyholders and brokers with a clear understanding of the legal trends shaping the insurance landscape, including salutary reminders and pitfalls to avoid. Unless otherwise stated, the Insurance Act 2015 is referred to as the “2015 Act” and the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 as the “2010 Act”. Insurance Act 2015 Lonham Group Ltd v Scotbeef Ltd & DS Storage Ltd (in liquidation) (05 March 2025) In this Judgment, the Court of Appeal issued seminal guidance on how the 2015 Act treats representations, warranties, and conditions precedent. The Court was asked to determine whether the requirements under a Duty of Assured clause were representations or conditions precedent and thus triggering different sections of the 2015 Act. The policy contained a three‑limb “Duty of Assured Clause” requiring D&S to: Declare all current trading conditions at policy inception. Continuously trade under those conditions. Take all reasonable steps to ensure those conditions were incorporated into all contracts. The Court was asked to consider whether all three limbs needed to be read collectively (i.e. they would all be classified as either representations or conditions/warranties) or separately (so that each limb was capable of a separate classification). Overturning the decision of the High Court, the Court found that limb 1 was a pre-contractual representation subject to the duty of fair presentation of the 2015 Act, but limbs 2 and 3 were warranties and conditions precedent. As such, in accordance with the 2015 Act, the Insurer had no liability after the date on which the warranty had been breached. This classification was said to reflect the 2015 Act’s intent: representations allow for proportionate remedies if inaccurate; terms requiring future conduct held to be warranties and/or conditions, by contrast, enable insurers to reject coverage upon breach, provided the terms are clearly drafted. This decision marked the first major Court of Appeal test of Part 3 of the 2015 Act, and confirms that Duty of Assured clauses can contain both historic representations that go to the Insured’s duty of fair presentation, and warranties as to future conduct, which can have particularly catastrophic consequences if breached. It serves as a reminder to Policyholders and Brokers to scrutinise policy terms and ensure compliance. Read our full article here. Clarendon v Zurich [2025] EWHC 267 (Comm) – Commercial Court Judgment (13 February 2025) Fenchurch Law acted for Clarendon Dental Spa LLP and Clarendon Dental Spa (Leeds) Ltd, who claimed under a Zurich property damage and business interruption policy after a major fire. Zurich sought to avoid liability, alleging breach of the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act for failing to disclose insolvency of related entities. The Court examined Zurich’s proposal question, “Have you or any partners, directors or family members involved in the business… been declared bankrupt or insolvent…?,” and held that a reasonable policyholder would interpret it as referring only to current directors or partners, not former entities. Consistent with Ristorante Ltd v Zurich (2021), and applying contra proferentem, the Court confirmed that ambiguity in insurer questions is resolved in favour of the insured and that disclosure obligations are shaped by the questions asked at inception. Overall, the Court concluded Clarendon’s answers were correct and, in any event, Zurich had waived any right to disclosure beyond the scope of its own questions. Please see our full article here. Delos Shipholding v Allianz [2025] EWCA Civ 1019 The Court of Appeal upheld the earlier Commercial Court’s ruling, reinforcing policyholder rights under marine war risks insurance and clarifying the duty of fair presentation under the 2015 Act. The case concerned the bulk carrier WIN WIN, detained by Indonesian authorities for over a year after a minor anchoring infraction. Allianz denied cover, citing an exclusion for detentions under customs or quarantine regulations and alleging non-disclosure of criminal charges against a nominee director. The Court confirmed the exclusion must be construed narrowly, only detentions genuinely akin to customs or quarantine regulations fall within its scope and the WIN WIN’s detention did not qualify. It also reaffirmed that fortuity remains where the insured’s actions were neither voluntary nor intended to cause the loss. On duty of fair presentation, the Court held the nominee director (who had no decision-making authority) was not part of “senior management” under the 2015 Act, so the Policyholder had no actual or constructive knowledge of criminal charges against him. Further, Allianz had failed to prove that the charges were material and would have induced Allianz to enter into the insurance contract. Our article on the Court of Appeal Judgment can be found here. Our earlier article on the Judgment of first instance is also here. Mode Management Limited v Axa Insurance UK PLC [2025] EWHC 2025 (Comm) Following a fire on 7 February 2018 at industrial units in Brentwood, Mode (the named insured) and its director (the property owner) sued AXA under a “Property Investor’s Protection Plan” seeking declaratory relief, specific performance (to reinstate/put them back to the pre‑loss position), and other remedies. AXA had avoided the policy ab initio in September 2018 for alleged misrepresentation/non‑disclosure (including questions over insurable interest and planning permission) and applied for summary judgment. The Commercial Court (Lesley Anderson KC sitting as Deputy High Court Judge) granted AXA’s application. The judge held that the claims were statute‑barred under the Limitation Act 1980, and in any event had no real prospect of success, including the insured’s bid for specific performance of AXA’s alleged secondary liability to reinstate. The director’s personal claim also failed because he was not a party insured under the policy. The Court emphasised that, on the pleaded facts and policy wording, specific performance was not an available remedy, and the case could be resolved without a trial. The Judgment can be accessed here. Malhotra Leisure Ltd v Aviva [2025] EWHC During the Covid-19 lockdown in July 2020, a cold-water storage tank burst at one of Malhotra’s hotels, causing significant damage. Aviva, the property damage and business interruption insurer, refused indemnity, alleging the escape of water was deliberately and dishonestly induced by the claimant and that there were associated breaches of the policy’s fraud condition. The Commercial Court held that Aviva bore the burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the incident was intentional. The Court found that available plumbing and expert evidence supported an accidental explanation, and Aviva’s own expert accepted the escape could have been fortuitous. The Court also scrutinised Aviva’s allegations of dishonesty in the presentation of the claim, finding that the Fraud Condition must be interpreted in line with the common law, meaning it applies only to dishonest collateral lies that materially support the claim, consistent with The Aegeon and Versloot. Because there was no evidence of dishonesty, and the alleged inaccuracies were either immaterial or inadvertent, the fraud condition did not bite, and Malhotra Leisure was entitled to indemnity. Please see our full article here. In a separate costs hearing, the Commercial Court was asked to determine whether costs should be awarded on the standard or indemnity basis. The claimant’s approved costs budget was £546,730.50, but actual costs exceeded £1.2 million, making the distinction significant. The Court noted that while there is no presumption in favour of indemnity costs where fraud allegations fail, such allegations are of the highest seriousness and, if unsuccessful, will often justify indemnity costs. The Judge found that Aviva’s allegations inflicted financial and reputational harm and were pursued to trial without settlement discussions. As a result, the Court ordered Aviva to pay the claimant’s costs on the indemnity basis, including an interim payment of £660,000, demonstrating the Court’s uncompromising approach towards unfounded fraud allegations. Please see our full article here. Effect of Third Parties Rights against Insurers Act 2010 Makin v QBE [2025] EWHC 895 (KB), Archer v Riverstone [2025] EWHC 1342 (KB), and Ahmed & Ors v White & Co & Allianz [2025] EWHC 2399 (Comm) This trio of cases highlights the strict approach taken to claims notification provisions in liability insurance policies alongside their impact under the 2010 Act and reaffirms that Claimants under the 2010 Act will have to suffer the consequences of a policyholders breach of conditions. The Courts confirmed that third-party claimants inherit not only the insured’s rights but also its contractual obligations. Notification clauses were treated as conditions precedent, even where not expressly labelled as such, meaning a breach of these provisions entitled insurers to deny indemnity. In Makin, Protec Security delayed notifying QBE for three years after an incident that ultimately led to catastrophic injury. The Court held that the obligation to notify arose once Protec reasonably appreciated potential liability which was well before formal proceedings. Ultimately, failure to comply barred recovery. Similarly, in Archer, R’N’F Catering failed to notify Riverstone promptly and ignored repeated requests for information. The Court rejected arguments that the claimant’s later cooperation could cure the insured’s breach, confirming that rights lost by the insured cannot be revived under the 2010 Act. Both judgments emphasise that the trigger for notification is not the incident itself but the point at which the insured knows a claim may arise. Excuses such as administrative errors (argument that relevant correspondence had been sent to a spam folder) or insolvency were given short shrift. By contrast, Ahmed focused on whether notifications made by White & Co to Allianz were sufficiently clear to trigger coverage under a professional indemnity policy. Despite extensive correspondence, the Court found none of the notifications adequately identified the claims or potential liabilities intended to be covered. The judgment underscores that compliance is not just about timing but also clarity and substance, vague or incomplete notices may fail to engage the policy. The case also illustrates how technical drafting, such as aggregation clauses and endorsements, can compound the consequences of inadequate notification, limiting recovery even where coverage might otherwise apply. These decisions reinforce several key points for policyholders and claimants: Notification clauses, even if unlabelled, may operate as conditions precedent. Breaches by the insured cannot be remedied by third-party claimants under the 2010 Act. Both timing and clarity of notifications are critical; “can of worms” notifications must be explicit. Failure to comply can result in catastrophic loss of indemnity, regardless of claim severity. Policyholders, with their Brokers’ assistance, should adopt a proactive and precise approach to claims notification to avoid disputes and preserve coverage. Please see our full article on Ahmed here. The full Judgment on Ahmed is available here. Aviation Russian Aircraft Lessor Policy Claims [2025] EWHC 1430 (Comm). In a landmark Judgment handed down on 30 June 2025, the Commercial Court determined coverage disputes arising from the grounding and expropriation of hundreds of Western leased aircraft in Russia following the invasion of Ukraine and the imposition of Russian Order 311 in March 2022. The claims, brought by a consortium of lessors including AerCap, DAE, Falcon, KDAC, Merx and Genesis, were the subject of a “mega trial” and resulted in the largest ever insurance award by the UK courts of over £809 million. The Court held that Contingent Cover responded because the aircraft were not in the lessors’ physical possession and operator policy claims remained unpaid (interpreting, “not indemnified” as “not paid”). Applying a balance of probabilities standard, permanent deprivation was deemed to occur on 10 March 2022, with Russian Order 311 identified as the proximate cause amounting to an effective governmental restraint. This amounted to governmental “restraint” or “detention,” which fell within the Government Peril exclusion under the All-Risks section. Under the Wayne Tank principle, where there are concurrent causes, one covered and one excluded, the exclusion prevails, meaning All Risks could not respond. Consequently, the claims were covered under the War Risks section. The biggest takeaway for Policyholders from this case, is the guidance that Mr Justice Butcher adopted from the Australian case of LCA Marrickville Pty Limited v Swiss Re International SE [2022] FCAFC 17, which held that: “The ease with which an insured may establish matters relevant to its claim for indemnity may influence questions of construction … a construction which advances the purpose of the cover is to be preferred to one that hinders it as a factor in construing the policies.” Please see our full article here. Building Safety Act 1972 URS Corporation Ltd (Appellant) v BDW Trading Ltd (Respondent) [2025] UKSC 21 In summary, BDW (being the relevant developer) sued URS (being the design engineers) in negligence for repair costs from structural defects in two development schemes. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether such voluntarily incurred cost was recoverable and whether section 135 of the Building Safety Act 2022 (“BSA”) extends limitation for such claims. The Supreme Court unanimously found that once developer knows that defects are attributable to negligent design then remedial works – even on property no longer owned by it – are not ‘voluntary’ in the sense they fall within the ambit of the engineers’ duty. This fortifies the existing common law principles that loss incurred in reliance on professional duty is recoverable, even absent a direct proprietary interest. The Court clarified that section 135 of the BSA merely extends time for Defective Premises Act 1972 claims and does not revive or extend limitation periods for tortious claims. Policyholders should note that professional indemnity insurers need not cover historic negligence where properly time-barred under the Limitation Act 1980, unless otherwise endorsed. The Court also held that section 135 of the BSA does not permit developers to treat their negligent repair costs as falling within extended timeframes, preserving clear statutory boundaries between contract/statutory claims and tort claims. Read our full article on the Supreme Court’s Judgment here. CAR Policies Sky UK Limited & Mace Limited v Riverstone Managing Agency Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 1567 Insurers sought permission to appeal the Court of Appeal’s December 2024 decision in Sky v Riverstone ([2024] EWCA Civ 1567), which confirmed that deterioration and development damage occurring after the policy period, but stemming from damage during it, was covered under the CAR policy, along with investigation costs and a single deductible per event. On 30 April 2025, the Supreme Court refused permission to appeal, leaving the Court of Appeal’s ruling intact. This outcome reinforces that insurers cannot restrict recovery to damage physically present at the end of the policy period and affirms a practical approach to progressive damage under CAR policies. Overall, the refusal cements the Court of Appeal’s interpretation, providing certainty for policyholders on coverage for post-expiry deterioration linked to insured-period damage. Our article on the Court of Appeal ruling, now confirmed by the Supreme Court’s dismissal is found here. Latent Defects National House Building Council v Peabody Trust [2025] EWCA Civ 932 (CA) The Court of Appeal resolved a key limitation question over NHBC Buildmark insurance’s “Option 1 – Insolvency cover before practical completion.” Under this extension, insurance is triggered not by the contractor’s insolvency per se but when the employer (Peabody) “has to pay more” to complete the homes because of the insolvency. The underlying development involved 175 dwellings, including 88 social housing units. The contractor became insolvent in June 2016, and Peabody arranged for completion thereafter, with practical completion in January 2021. The claim for additional completion costs was brought in July 2023. NHBC contended that the cause of action accrued in 2016, when the contractor became insolvent, and was now statute-barred; Peabody argued instead that it accrued when costs were actually incurred. The Court unanimously agreed with Peabody, affirming the Technology & Construction Court’s view that the policy insured against additional payment triggered by insolvency, so the cause of action only accrued when extra costs became payable. The NHBC appeal was dismissed. This decision emphasises the importance of carefully identifying the insured event as defined in policy terms and confirms that policies with “pay-when-loss-incurred” triggers should be interpreted on their true wording rather than conventional accrual rules. The Judgment can be found here. Other Insurance Watford Community Housing Trust v Arthur J Gallagher Insurance Brokers Ltd This Judgment was a significant ruling clarifying principles concerning multiple cover and a policyholder’s rights following a cyber-related loss. It was a resounding win for policyholders: securing sequential access to multiple policies. The Court held that Watford had the right to choose which policies to invoke, having the benefit of PI, Cyber and Combined policies, attracting limits of £5 million, £1 million, and £5 million, respectively. Timely notification was made under the Cyber policy, but late notification was successfully raised by the PI insurer to decline indemnity. The Combined insurer confirmed cover despite late notification. The Court held that the “other insurance” clauses (limiting cover where overlapping insurance exists) effectively neutralised each other, allowing sequential claims rather than enforcing contribution across overlapping policies. This ruling supports the principle that a policyholder can access each policy in turn until the total loss is covered. Having recovered £6 million, Watford also sought recovery of the additional £5 million under the PI policy had timely notification been made. Consequently, Watford was entitled to a total of £11 million. As to broker liability, the Court found that, but for the broker’s negligence, the PI policy would have been exhausted. Since it was not, the broker was held liable for the £5 million shortfall. The Judgment is a stark reminder that notification conditions should be identified and complied with. It also emphasises a broker’s duty to accurately advise on policy layers and limitations to ensure the policyholder is clearly instructed and that the advice given is documented. Our full article can be found here. Authors Dan Robin, Managing Partner Catrin Wyn Williams, Associate Pawinder Manak, Trainee Solicitor

Sudan’s civil war feels like a tragic echo of the questions posed more than fifty years ago in “What's Going On”, my favourite concept album of all time—a work that remains painfully relevant in moments like this. Just as Marvin Gaye framed war, injustice, and social breakdown through a lens of sorrow and moral urgency, Sudan today is trapped in a devastating cycle where ordinary people bear the heaviest costs of prolonged violence. The album’s quiet, anguished plea for empathy mirrors the scenes emerging from Khartoum and Darfur: families displaced, cities hollowed out, and a population left asking “what’s going on?”. Sudan is a country of approximately 50 million people located in north-east Africa and is the third largest on the continent by land area after Algeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The capital is Khartoum, located at the junction of the Blue Nile and the White Nile rivers in the centre of the country. The country has been beset by conflict since gaining independence from the UK and Egypt in 1956. A civil war spanning 1983 to 2005 between the country's northern and southern region, following an earlier conflict between 1955 and 1972, resulted ultimately in the secession of South Sudan in 2011. In addition, long -standing tensions between Arab and non-Arab communities led to a war in Sudan's western Darfur region from 2003 onwards. In April 2019, the Sudanese military deposed Omar al-Bashir, who has led Sudan since seizing power in 1989 and a subsequent power struggle between General al-Burhan and Hemedti led to the outbreak of the current Sudanese current civil war between the SAF and RSF in April 2023. The UN has described the current civil war in Sudan as a crisis of staggering proportions, with civilians paying the highest price. We act for many Sudanese asylum seekers and to our dismay and surprise, some of those individuals end up in court, having to defend their position as individuals who cannot return. One such client is a Sudanese man and his young family who, if returned to Sudan as an ordinary civilian, will be exposed to the risk of harm extending from the ongoing conflict. Despite our persuasive arguments in respect of the application for him to be granted limited leave to remain outside the immigration rules, the Home Office refused his application. "It is considered to be reasonable to expect you to return to Sudan and continue to enjoy your family life in Sudan. While this may involve a degree of disruption to your private life, this is considered to be proportionate to the legitimate aim of maintaining effective immigration control.” “In addition, the desire or preference to live in the UK does not amount to an exceptional circumstance.” In other words, the Home Office found that returning this man and his family to Sudan would not amount to exceptional circumstances. The Home Office speaks about the inability to find employment and accommodation may be an inconvenience, but the degree of inconvenience does not amount to an exceptional circumstance. After carefully considering the representations against the published guidance on granting leave outside the immigration rules, the Home Office decided that the circumstances of this individual did not consider it to be sufficiently compelling or compassionate for discretion to be exercised. Needless to say, we appealed and are now waiting to attend court. In the process of this appeal, we instructed a country expert, Dr Hafidi, to prepare a report, so as to demonstrate to the immigration judge, what the current situation in Sudan is and to highlight to the representative of the Home Office their own policies and country guidance. We will aim to argue that the CPIN (the Country Policy Information Note), which the immigration officer should rely on, regarding security, addresses the level of violence in Sudan, including against its own civilians and reports that there is significant violence recorded in Khartoum. Furthermore, it provides that internal relocation will only be possible depending on the person's circumstances, not excluding any affiliation with armed groups in opposition and ethnic origin. In addition to the schedule of country evidence provided by ourselves, the sad reality of Sudan is verified and confirmed by the House of Lords Library in their report the Humanitarian Situation in Sudan, November 2025. In short, currently in Sudan both government forces and allied militias have repeatedly committed gross human rights violations, often rising to the level of war crimes and crimes against humanity. In April 2023, Sudan was plunged into a new civil war. At this time, an internal power struggle between two factions of the same regime, namely the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al Burhan and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), led by Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo. This conflict, now going on for over two years, has been characterised by extreme brutality towards civilians. According to the Independent UN Fact Finding Mission report to the Human Rights Council, the rival forces in Sudan have been deliberately targeting the civilian population, committing atrocities, including war crimes, on a large scale. The Mission's findings, released in September 2025 under the title “A War of Atrocities”, make clear that both the SAF and the RSF are responsible for direct, large-scale attacks on civilians, as well as for the destruction of objects essential to civilian survival. An individual returning to Sudan will be returning to a place where they would be at risk of harm, extending from the ongoing conflicts. The parties have carried out international attacks on civilian infrastructure like hospitals, displacement camps and markets and failed to spare civilians from indiscriminate shelling and air strikes, leading to widespread destruction. According to the House of Lords briefing, the UN has described the current civil war in Sudan as a crisis of staggering proportions, with civilians paying the highest price. UN agencies have described the conflict as being responsible for the world's largest humanitarian crisis and the world's largest displacement crisis. Multiple sources, including UN agencies and non-governmental organisations, have drawn attention to catastrophic levels of human suffering in western Sudan, including mass atrocities, unlawful killings, sexual violence and extreme malnutrition. In early November 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC), expressed its profound alarm and deepest concern over recent reports emerging from El Fasher about mass killings, rapes and other crimes allegedly committed during the course of the Rapid Support Forces' attacks. It added: "These atrocities are part of a broader pattern of violence that has afflicted the entire the Darfur region since April 2023." What is the UK Government Policy? In April 2025, the UK government co-hosted a conference on Sudan with the African Union, the EU, France and Germany in London and international parties announced over £800 million of support to address the humanitarian situation. In July 2025, Catherine West, then a Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the FCDO, said the UK government condemned the growing body of evidence of serious atrocities being committed against civilians in Sudan, highlighted the ICC's findings and said the finding marked an important milestone in the ICC's investigation into crimes committed in the region. In September 2025, the UK co-chaired a Ministerial meeting on Sudan with the African Union, the EU, Ministers from France and Germany, following the earlier London conference. On 1 November 2025, the government announced a further £5mn in emergency humanitarian support in response to developments in Darfur and at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council on 14 November 2025, Baroness Chapman said: "Ongoing impunity and reticence from the international community means the conflict in Sudan is now the largest humanitarian crisis of the 21st century." It is accepted by the international community and by the UK government that there is an intentional destruction of infrastructure and livelihood across the conflict. The UN Fact-Finding Mission found that both the army and the RSF have been responsible for extensive destruction of essential infrastructure for survival, such as hospitals, markets, water facilities and power stations. They found that food scarcity has become an acute emergency, and that it has affected the availability and accessibility of water, adequate sanitation and hygiene. Disease outbreaks are increasing in the face of disruption to basic public health services, according to the World Health Organisation in March 2025 and Sudan's education has been devastated through school closures and repurposing of schools as shelters. Alarmingly, the entire situation presents the most precarious position for women, which of course has significantly worsened ever since the start of the war in 2023. Women and girls are facing escalating risk of gang rape, sexual slavery, trafficking and forced marriages. Experts highlight that in the villages such as Al Seriha, Azrag, Ruffa, women have taken their own lives following traumatic assaults, noting that survivors are increasingly and openly contemplating suicide as a means of escaping the ongoing horrors of the conflict. Since 2025, at least 330 cases of conflict-related sexual violence have been documented, although the real number is believed to be significantly higher due to underreporting. The brutal nature of the atrocities against women in the midst of the conflict has rung international alarm bells, and in April 2025, UN Women highlighted that the conflict in Sudan has disproportionately shattered the lives of women and girls. Sexual violence against women is being used as a weapon in the ongoing conflict and UN Women in November 2025 categorically stated that there is mounting evidence that rape is being deliberately and systematically used as a weapon of war. There are no safe spaces left for women and enforced disappearances of women and girls have reportedly surged in the RSF-controlled areas, which many believe to have been abducted for sexual slavery and exploitation. Victims are taken from displacement settings, markets and shelters amid the collapse of protection systems. And so, when we argued that civilians are regularly targeted by armed forces on both sides of the conflict, the Home Office CPIN supported this submission. In fact, it states that both SAF and RSF have used explosive weapons in civilian areas across Sudan, indiscriminately shelled and in the case of SAF used air strikes on civilian neighbourhoods and against essential infrastructure. We submitted that medical facilities are targeted and destroyed due to the conflict and indeed the CPIN, referencing the International Rescue Committee, categorically highlights those multiple attacks on healthcare facilities and workers and the occupation of medical facilities by armed forces has resulted in the destruction of medical infrastructure. We have argued that there is systematic use of rape as a weapon of war and the high risk of sexual violence against women. The CPIN categorically acknowledged such risk and has in several instances concluded that women face this as a result of the conflict in Sudan. We have argued all of this and yet the applicant's application was refused, with the need to attend Court. One way to resolve some of the misery of the Sudanese approach is to make sure that the Home Office stops making flawed initial decisions, which are subsequently overturned in Court.