Daniel Makin v Protec Security Group Limited & QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited [2025] EWHC 895

In these economically challenging times, some defendants do not take out employers’ liability or public liability insurance. Sometimes they have insurance, but they do not tell their insurers about a claim because they fear that their premiums will increase. If you are acting for a claimant and the defendant will not tell you who their insurers are then alarm bells should immediately start to ring. The defendant may not have insurance or their failure to tell their insurers about the claim may mean that they are in breach of the notification of claim conditions in the policy so that the insurers do not have to indemnity the defendant for the claim. A claim could still be brought against the defendant, but they may not be good for the money or may become bankrupt leaving the clamant with no damages.

Some of these matters were highlighted in the case of Daniel Makin v Protec Security Group Limited & QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited [2025] EWHC 895 (KB): HHJ Pearce sitting as a judge of the High Court. On 6th August 2017 the Claimant went to a bar in Oldham with friends. The Particulars of Claim described him as being in “high spirits”. He threw a glass on to the floor. Two door supervisors ejected him from the bar. Outside there was an altercation. In the course of that one of the door supervisors forced the Claimant to the ground and held him in a headlock. After the incident, the Claimant got up and took a taxi home where he lived alone. Two days later his mother went to visit him because she had not heard from him. She found that he had suffered a stroke. The Claimant has been left with serious neurological disability as a result of the stroke. His case was that he was unable to work. He needed ongoing and long-term significant care. He lacked the capacity to litigate. His claim had been valued at over £1 million. The door supervisors were working for Protec. QBE were Protec’s public liability insurers at the time of the incident.

In July 2023 a preliminary issue trial was held. Protec did not attend the trial; joint liquidators had been appointed over the company the day before the trial. At the trial, the Claimant succeeded in establishing that he had suffered the stroke and subsequent injury as a result of the assault by the door supervisor and that Protec were vicariously liable for that assault and consequent injury.

In January 2024 QBE were joined to the action pursuant to the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 on the basis that Protec were or potentially were subject to a liability to the Claimant which liability was insured under the contract of insurance with QBE.

QBE accepted that the policy was capable of responding to the claim.

The Claimant and QBE agreed that the Claimant was a third party within the meaning of the 2010 Act, that Protec was a relevant person within the meaning of that section and consequently the Claimant was in the class of persons entitled to bring a claim against the insurer under the Act. Equally, it was agreed that the Claimant’s rights against QBE were no better than those of Protec’s in whose shoes he stood pursuant to the Act. Thus, if QBE had a good defence to a claim for indemnity by Protec for their liability to the Claimant then it would equally have a good defence to the Claimant’s claim.

QBE argued that it was not liable to the Claimant because of a failure by Protec to notify them of the Claimant’s claim in accordance with the insurance policy. After a detailed consideration of the wording of the policy and also of case law HHJ Pearce held that compliance with the notification of claim provisions in the policy’s conditions were a condition precedent to liability. Having considered the communications between Protec and QBE and the dates on which they had occurred, the judge held that Protec had not complied with the notification provisions. QBE were therefore not liable to indemnify Protec under the policy and consequently had a good defence to the Claimant’s claim.

In his judgment HHJ Pearce said that it should be noted that none of the matters that QBE relied upon in support of their contention that Protec were in breach of the policy’s notice conditions were a consequence of the actions of either the Claimant or those who acted on his behalf. QBE’s defence involved extensive criticism of the inaction of Protec: the very party who were liable for the Clamant’s injuries. The judge said that, “The irony is not lost on the court, though it is an inevitable consequence of the scheme by which the Second Defendant’s rights under the policy vest in the Claimant. As Mr Withington KC said in closing submissions, one must have considerable sympathy for the Claimant, but that cannot by itself mean that he has a good legal case.”

Daniel Makin v Protec Security Group Limited & QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited [2025] EWHC 895 judgment.

10th Jun 2025

Adrian Higgins

Call 1990