Multiple claims and ‘some wrongful act’ Aggregation (UK)

This UK High Court judgment of September 2025 considered whether multiple claims could be considered to be a single claim in the context of the policy wording which provided for aggregation of claims “arising out of, based upon or attributable to the same facts or alleged facts, or circumstances or the same Wrongful Act, or a continuous repeated or related Wrongful Act.”

The relevant claims clause said:

“If during the Policy Period a Claim is made or a circumstance is notified in accordance with the requirements of this policy any Related Claim made after expiry of the Policy Period will be accepted by the Insurer as having been: (i) made at the same time as the notified Claim was made or the relevant circumstance was notified, and (ii) notified at the same time as the notified Claim or circumstance. All Related Claims shall be deemed to be one single Claim and deemed to be made at the date of the first Claim of the series or at the first circumstance notified, whichever is first."

Related Claims were defined as:

“any Claims alleging, arising out of, based upon or attributable to the same facts or alleged facts, or circumstances or the same Wrongful Act, or a continuous repeated or related Wrongful Act.”

The claims arose from a series of investments made by a large number of individual investors who had been advised by the insured, a firm of accountants, to participate in various tax?driven investment schemes. When those investments failed, the investors brought claims alleging that the advice had been negligent. The question was whether they could be considered to be a single claim, capping the insurer’s liability at the aggregate limit.

The court rejected the insured’s first argument that the Related Claims clause was not intended to apply to claims made after the policy period but arising from circumstances notified during the policy period. The court said that “There is nothing that prevents a claim, whether actually notified or one that arises from a communication, that falls within the deeming provision of the policy relating to the notification of circumstances from also falling within the category of “Related Claims.”

The court also rejected the argument that the claims did not arise from “the same facts or alleged facts” because the claimants each obtained their own advice from the attorneys, so each act of negligence was a separate breach of duty.

The court said that while the advice had common themes it differed in the advice that was given separately to each particular investor and in relation to their particular investment but went on to hold that the phrase “Related Wrong Act” was not necessarily concerned with identical acts.

There was a sufficient degree of connection between the claims relating to the investments to aggregate those claims because the same deficient advice concerning the particular section of the Income Tax Act was given to all the affected claimants.

The judgment highlights the leading English authorities on aggregation.

A similar result is likely to follow in South African law.

Click here to read more...

[Ahmed v White & Co [2025] EWHC 2399 (Comm)]