Steven Antony Elliott v The Members of Lloyds Syndicate 4444 as Constituted for the 2017 Underwriting Year of Account Acting Through their Managing Agent Canopius Management Agents Limited [2026] EWHC 1773 (TCC)

[2026] EWHC 1773 (TCC)Case No HT-2024-000249IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEBUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALESKING'S BENCH DIVISIONTECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURTVenue Royal Courts of Justice, Rolls Building, Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1NLDate 15/07/2026
Before
ADRIAN WILLIAMSON KCSITTING AS A DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Between
STEVEN ANTONY ELLIOTTClaimantTHE MEMBERS OF LLOYDS SYNDICATE 4444 AS CONSTITUTED FOR THE 2017 UNDERWRITING YEAR OF ACCOUNT ACTING THROUGH THEIR MANAGING AGENT CANOPIUS MANAGEMENT AGENTS LIMITEDDefendant
Joshua Munro and Ian Chai (instructed on a Public Access basis) for ClaimantDavid Cunnington (instructed by Mills and Reeve LLP) for DefendantHearing Hearing dates: 8 th to 11 th, 15 th and 17 th June 2026Judgment date: 15 July 2026

Adrian Williamson KC :

[1]In these proceedings, the Claimant (Mr Elliott) seeks relief against the Defendant (the Insurers) in relation to an insurance claim concerning a house known as The Old Vicarage, 67 Main Road, Biddenham, Bedford, MK40 4BE (the Property).[2]The main part of the Property, which is listed Grade II, dates from about 1750. The Property has two further wings, which have been added subsequently. An Eastern Extension was built in the Victorian period. A Western Extension/Garage Block was constructed more recently, in about the 1980s.[3]On the face of it, this is a very simple claim. As expressed in the Particulars of Claim, Mr Elliott advances his claim as follows:
“3. By a contract of insurance, contained in policy number PLUMIIC003543, a copy of which is attached (“the Contract”), the Defendant agreed to provide the Claimant with household insurance in respect of the Premises and in particular to indemnify the Claimant against loss resulting from damage to the Property and its contents caused by subsidence for the period 9 August 2017 to 8 August 2018. ("the Policy Period"). 4.The Contract expressly provided inter alia Buildings Cover of £1m which included the following cover: “The Buildings of your home will be protected subject to any Endorsements to the contrary in the following way…[against] Subsidence”
. Damage from Subsidence 5.The Property has sustained damage from subsidence, such damage occurring during the Policy Period. Particulars (a) in or about June 2018, cracking was observed to the garage of the Property; (b) in or about July 2018, cracking was observed to various areas of the main dwelling of the Property. (c) Such cracking was the result of subsidence caused by the de-hydration and re-hydration of the soil underlying the Property. The soil became desiccated as a result of the actions of the roots of a very large Cedar of Lebanon tree growing near to the Property and in front of the main front door of the main dwelling of the Property.” Damage from Subsidence

Particulars

[4]However, as will appear, this claim involves a very tangled web indeed.[5]The parties have agreed a list of issues, and I deal with these below to the extent necessary, albeit not in the order set out in the list of issues.[6]The structure of this Judgment is, therefore, as follows: a) An overview of the facts; b) The factual oral evidence; c) Issues 2 to 4; d) Issue 8; e) Issue 5; f) Other issues (1, 6, 7 and 9); g) Miscellaneous/documents; h) Conclusions. A. Factual Overview[7]Mr Elliott purchased the Property in about 2010. It appears from a 2013 report by a company called Ferrymans that the main part of the Property had suffered subsidence in about 2003.[8]Mr Elliott initially insured the Property with RSA. He made a claim for subsidence damage in August 2011, and this gave rise to various investigations. In particular, a July 2014 report by Ground Engineering Limited recommended underpinning. In January 2015 Mr Elliott settled his claim with RSA for about £200,000. The main element of this settlement was to pay for repairs by a company called Falcon. Falcon duly carried out some underpinning works.[9]However, the subsidence problems allegedly continued. On 13 April 2015, Mr Elliott emailed Falcon as follows:
“Please see report attached explained in my letter sent to you over a week ago. It appears the underpinning may have caused the Victorian aspect of the house and the garage block to move. It is now extremely urgent I have the 12 year guarantee.”
[10]Falcon was one of the many people and organisations with whom Mr Elliott was to fall out. In due course, he made a High Court claim against them. In his Amended Particulars of Claim dated 21st July 2020, and confirmed by his Statement of Truth, Mr Elliott alleged that there was “movement and superstructure damage” to both the Eastern and Western Extensions in early 2015. He stated that works to deal with this damage had not yet been undertaken as at 2020.[11]Further or continuing movement continued to occur, or so Mr Elliott alleged. A company called MK Surveys was, therefore, engaged to carry out monitoring work at the Property from about 2015 onwards. On 14th April 2016, Mr Elliott notified them that “one of the most important readings is from the garage where a 5 foot long vertical crack has appeared since the last readings taken”. This was a reference to the Western Extension/Garage Block.[12]On or about 9th August 2017, Mr Elliott entered into the present policy with the Insurers (the Policy). The Policy Period ran to 8th August 2018. The Policy was entered into online through the Money Supermarket platform with a declared value for the Property of £533,000.[13]Mr Elliott had also procured a buildings policy of insurance with East Kent Underwriting Limited (EK). The EK policy ran from 19th June 2017 to 18th June 2018. This policy was renewed for the year 2018/2019.[14]On 24th July 2018, Mr Elliott notified the Insurers of the present subsidence claim. There was said to be a “8ft crack mirrored on inside and outside of his property. Garage is the only area effected [sic]”.[15]Further investigations ensued and, in parallel, Mr Elliott continued to pursue Falcon. In July 2020, he settled for £50,000 a claim for damage to fixtures and fittings and other property. In April 2021, he received a further £150,000 from them in settlement of his claim for damage to the Property itself.[16]Despite these sums being received, it seems that Mr Elliott was in financial difficulties by the end of 2021. On 2nd October 2021, he emailed his then solicitors in the following terms, emphasis as original :
“Further to your note the other day concerning my LEI I would be grateful for some idea of what I can expect out of the £150,000 settlement. It is unusual to agree a settlement without knowing what I am getting not least because as you are aware I had an absolute minimum I could agree to having settled low on the Falcon claims to concentrate on the stronger LD claim. I am having to cover the losses I have suffered over the failed planning which has cost £25000 in original planning fees which appear to have been duplicated with a further £30,000 paid for the refused planning application and now the loss of the sale of £450,000 and £20,000 cash deposit paid to me I will have to pay back. Add this to the £10,000 paid to Amanda and I am trying to cover £85000. I am obviously now totally defendant [sic] on the warranty and RSA claims to pay for the underpinning of the rear to be able to finally sell the house and lose the £1m loan I have serviced for 11 years now.”
[17]On 16th November 2021, Mr Elliott wrote to Mr Neil Hadley as follows, he being the Loss Adjuster appointed by the Insurers to investigate the present claim, with emphasis as original:
“Dear Mr. Hadley, VERY URGENT Our Ref: 45443757139 I refer to my letter 12/7/19 in relation to my claim made over 3 years ago as can be seen from the attached email. I further attach formal complaints concerning the suggestion fixing gutters and cutting a hedge down would remedy subsidence caused by ground movement. For the avoidance of doubt in 12/7/19 you were advised: “There does not appear to be any Geotechnical analysis of the ground underneath the garage block; and/or Trial pits and/or Boreholes; and/or Investigating the locations and effects of the Tree’s roots; and/or an Arboricultural Report; and/or Investigating the possibility of felling the Tree; and/or Examining the foundations; ; and/or Monitoring the progression of movement; and/or Investigating whether underpinning or other remedial measures were needed”
I have today been passed by my solicitor the attached letter sent to you 21/10/21 and note there is the conclusion more robust action is required albeit at this stage that does not appear to include dealing with the ground movement identified by Ground Engineering and copied to you. I had placed you on notice some time back the house was sold and because of the garage subsidence the buyer withdrew to allow you to remedy the problem. I am therefore at a loss to understand why you have refused to engage with a claim where the damages being suffered are far in excess of the garage requiring underpinning. In short I have lost the profit from the sale of the property in 2018 to date being 3 years on £1,000,000 being £240,000. That damages continues until the garage is underpinned. In the first instance I would ask for a response within 7 days concerning the contents of the attached letter that states “In light of the level of movement, consideration could be given to undertaking a more robust repair using the heil-beam system” and indeed “Recent monitoring tends to suggest the hedge may not be playing a significant part and provided it is maintained could be considered to remain” Finally in light of the reluctance for my insurers to engage in dealing with this claim and in order to mitigate ongoing damages I have instructed builders to underpin the garage block in line with the recommendations of Ground Engineering copied to you 3 years ago.”

VERY URGENT Our Ref: 45443757139

[18]This application was supported by what purported to be a quotation from Mr Norman of Kempston Building Services dated 11th November 2021. This stated, with emphasis added:
“ Re: The Old Vicarage Clear garages and put in storage Clear garages and put in storage Take up middle garage floor and remove all interior fixings Insert jack/wall supports Excavate dig out trenches as per structural engineer report Concrete mix to underpin with Anchors Floating floor to whole area with DPM 100mm, Celotex and board All walls battened with DPC behind 863 Tack and skim All electrics reinstate All plumbing reinstate Please Note This does not include any decorating or floor coverings £18,750 plus VAT”

Clear garages and put in storage

[19]The Insurers have not paid out in relation to this, or any other, aspect of the claim. I will return to the November 2021 documents at section D below. B. The factual evidence[20]The present dispute has spawned an enormous number of documents. This would, usually, mean that the court should decide the matter principally in reliance upon the contemporaneous documents put before it. This would accord with the proper approach to oral/factual evidence outlined by Leggatt, J, as he then was, in Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) at paragraphs 15-22 .[21]However, this case is somewhat out of the ordinary, because at the heart of the dispute is the question of whether the documents which Mr Elliott seeks to rely upon are genuine. Mr Elliott was cross-examined by Mr Cunnington, who appears for the Insurers, for upwards of two days. The cross-examination was courteous and fair but also searching.[22]Based upon this evidence, and Mr Cunnington’s submissions, I have concluded that Mr Elliott’s evidence is entirely unreliable. It follows that nothing he says can be accepted unless there is unequivocal documentary support for the same. I say this for the following reasons.[23]Firstly, as noted, I had the advantage of seeing and hearing Mr Elliott in the witness box. He was an evasive and argumentative witness. Very often his answers made little sense. He had no answer, convincing or otherwise, to the numerous suggestions of dishonesty put to him.[24]Secondly, I am satisfied on the evidence that Mr Elliott summoned Mr Norman to a meeting in a pub in May 2025 in order to offer him £10,000 in return for his not giving evidence at this trial. His explanation for convening this meeting – that he wished to discuss payment for, and completion of, the works carried out by Mr Norman in 2021/2 – was frankly ludicrous.[25]Thirdly, Mr Elliott persisted in his contention throughout the trial that he had been “cold called” on behalf of the Insurers in 2017 and that this was how the Policy came to be made. This contention flew in the face of the contemporary documents and the evidence adduced by the Insurers from transparently honest witnesses. This too was an insult to the intelligence of the court.[26]Fourthly, I am quite satisfied that Mr Elliott was guilty of the fraud alleged by the Insurers (as to which see Section D below).[27]The other witness worthy of note was Mr Norman. He was, on any view, a “rough diamond”. He clearly harboured strong feelings of dislike against Mr Elliott. Indeed, on 14 February 2022, he entered Mr Elliott's property and assaulted him. He later received a suspended prison sentence for this assault at Luton Magistrates Court and was ordered to pay compensation totalling £1,517.60. Moreover, Mr Norman accepted that, at the May 2025 pub meeting, he offered to accept £20,000 and payment for a holiday for himself and his children in return for not giving evidence at this trial.[28]Nonetheless, on the crucial point for which he was called – the scope of the works agreed to be carried out in November 2021 – I found him to be a credible and compelling witness. C. Issues 2 to 4[29]As appears from the Particulars of Claim quoted above, this case is concerned with subsidence. This has given rise to the following issues: 2. Did subsidence damage occur to the Property in the Policy Period? 3. If so, what was the extent of the subsidence damage to the property during the policy period? 4.What damage did the Claimant notify to the Defendant in 2018?[30]The following relevant definitions are set out in the Policy (and these accord with the usual understanding of these terms): i) “Heave: The upward or sideways movement of the site on which Your Buildings are situated caused by swelling of the ground.” ii) “Subsidence: Downward movement of the ground beneath Your Buildings”.[31]The Policy responds to damage to the Property as follows. The Insurers “will pay for loss of or damage occurring during the Period of insurance to the Buildings”. One of the insured risks is “Subsidence or ground Heave of the site the Buildings stand on”.[32]In relation to these issues, the parties called engineering experts (Mr Al Karfan for the Claimant, Mr Burnham for the Defendant). This was understandable but, in the event, the experts could contribute relatively little. They were first engaged in 2025/6 and were then invited to comment on whether subsidence had occurred in 2018.[33]Nonetheless, the expert evidence is of some assistance in a negative sense, as disproving the claim.[34]Amid the fog of confusion and dishonesty perpetrated by Mr Elliott, the following facts stand out.[35]First of all, the experts agreed in their Joint Statement that “there is no evidence of ground movement causing subsidence damage to the Main Building during the policy period. The Main Building refers to the property except for the West Extension/Triple Garage and the East Extension/Victorian Wing.”[36]As regards the East/Victorian extension, Mr Al Karfan sought to argue that Heave had arisen due to a defective (modern) soakaway. I was not persuaded that this was so, but, even if I had been, this would not have assisted Mr Elliott, for at least two reasons: i) The claim (above) is for Subsidence. There is no claim for Heave, which is a quite different sort of occurrence: see the definitions above; ii) The Policy does not respond to “Loss or damage arising from defective design, defective materials or faulty workmanship”, which is what I understood Mr Al Karfan to be putting forward.[37]That leaves the Western Extension/Garage Block. Here, at least, there are available some objective measurements, taken by MK Surveys. Appendix A to their Report of February 2025 noted the following at this location: i) At Monitoring point ID L1 levels varied between 49.385m and 49.378m between 14th April 2015 and 31st August 2017; ii) At Monitoring point ID L2 levels varied between 49.362m and 49.365m between 14th April 2015 and 31st August 2017; iii) At Monitoring point ID L3 levels varied between 49.320m and 49.322m between 14th April 2015 and 31st August 2017.[38]As to this, I accept Mr Burnham’s evidence to the effect that such movement was minimal and did not amount to subsidence damage. However, even were one to take a different view, this would only establish that there had possibly been very minor subsidence prior to the Policy Period.[39]MK Surveys did not make any further measurements until 6th February 2025. These were wholly inconclusive, and, in any event, many years after the end of the Policy Period: i) At Monitoring point ID L1 the level recorded was 49.380m, a movement of 2mm since 2017; ii) At Monitoring point ID L2 the level recorded was 49.369m, a movement of 4 mm since 2017; iii) At Monitoring point ID L3 the measurement was said to be “obstructed”.[40]In the absence of any real assistance from the experts, Mr Elliott in effect invites me to draw inferences in his favour based on his own recollection and the various reports and notifications over the years. Quite apart from my overall views expressed above as to his reliability, I would decline to draw any such inferences for the following further reasons.[41]It was Mr Elliott’s sworn evidence in this trial there had been no damage whatsoever to the Property between 2013 and the start of the Policy Period (August 2017). That evidence was untrue. Mr Elliott sought to keep from the Insurers knowledge of the claim he pursued against Falcon. But once they tracked down these pleadings, they found out that Mr Elliott was alleging in 2020 that damage had occurred to the Eastern Extension and Western Extension/Garage Block in 2015. He further alleged that such damage had gone unrepaired up to July 2020.[42]Further, in April 2016, before the Policy incepted, Mr Elliott sent an email to MK Surveys to inform them that he had discovered a large vertical crack in the garage wall.[43]The highest that the case could be put for Mr Elliott is that he made a number of allegations over the period from 2013 to 2020 that various incidents of movement had occurred at the Property, including the Western Extension/Garage Block. Even were these allegations taken at face value, the most that could be said is that there was “damage which started before [the Policy] came into force”. That is not insured under the Policy in any event.[44]I would therefore answer these issues as follows: i) Issue 2: Subsidence damage did not occur to the Property in the Policy Period; ii) Issue 3 does not arise; iii) Issue 4: The Claimant did not notify to the Defendant of any damage within the meaning of the Policy in 2018 or at all. D. Issue 8[45]The courts have, traditionally, treated contracts of insurance as being uberrimae fidei. That is because of the information asymmetry which exists between insurer and insured.[46]In keeping with this, Condition 7 of the Policy provides as follows:
“7. Concealment or Fraud Throughout Your dealings with Us and The insurer, We and The insurer expect You, or anyone acting for You to act honestly. If You or anyone acting for You… • knowingly makes a fraudulent or exaggerated claim under the policy or • knowingly makes a false statement in support of a claim or • submits a knowingly false or forged document in support of a claim… Then: • We or The insurer may prosecute fraudulent claimants. • We or The insurer may make the policy void from the date of the fraudulent act. • The insurer will seek to recover any payments from You which They have already made in respect of the fraudulent claim. This action will not affect any previous claims unless the fraudulent act took place before any previous claims in which case the policy will be cancelled from the date of the fraudulent act and therefore no cover exists after this date and The insurer will seek to recover any payments from any previous claims which They paid You on or after the date of the fraudulent act.”
If You or anyone acting for You…

Then:

[47]This Condition covers similar ground to section 12 of the Insurance Act 2015, which both parties accept is applicable to the Policy:
“(1) If the insured makes a fraudulent claim under a contract of insurance— (a)the insurer is not liable to pay the claim, (b)the insurer may recover from the insured any sums paid by the insurer to the insured in respect of the claim, and (c)in addition, the insurer may by notice to the insured treat the contract as having been terminated with effect from the time of the fraudulent act. (2) If the insurer does treat the contract as having been terminated— (a)it may refuse all liability to the insured under the contract in respect of a relevant event occurring after the time of the fraudulent act, and (b)it need not return any of the premiums paid under the contract. (3 )Treating a contract as having been terminated under this section does not affect the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract with respect to a relevant event occurring before the time of the fraudulent act. (4) In subsections (2)(a) and (3), “relevant event” refers to whatever gives rise to the insurer's liability under the contract (and includes, for example, the occurrence of a loss, the making of a claim, or the notification of a potential claim, depending on how the contract is written).”
[48]Although the Insurance Act 2015 and the Policy terms cover the present situation, the same need to be set in the context of the pre-existing law. The relevant principles were reviewed by the Supreme Court in Versloot Dredging BV and another v HDI Gerling Industrie Versicherung AG [2017] A.C. 1. In that case, Lord Sumption set the overall scene as follows:
“1. At common law, if an insured makes a fraudulent claim on his insurer, the latter is not liable to pay the claim. In relation to contracts concluded after 12 August 2016, the rule has been restated and its other consequences defined in section 12 of the Insurance Act 2015 . The question at issue on this appeal is what constitutes a fraudulent claim. This is a controversial question at common law, which the 2015 Act does not resolve. Three possible situations may be relevant. First, the whole claim may have been fabricated. In principle the rule would apply in this situation but would add nothing to the insurer's rights. He would not in any event be liable to pay the claim. Secondly, there may be a genuine claim, the amount of which has been dishonestly exaggerated. This is the paradigm case for the application of the rule. The insurer is not liable, even for that part of the claim which was justified. Third, the entire claim may be justified, but the information given in support of it may have been dishonestly embellished, either because the insured was unaware of the strength of his case or else with a view to obtaining payment faster and with less hassle.”
[49]The Insurers here contend that Mr Elliott’s case falls into the second category:
“a genuine claim, the amount of which has been dishonestly exaggerated.”
In view of my findings above, this may be thought somewhat generous to Mr Elliott but I will proceed on that basis.[50]It is clear from Versloot that, in the second category, the dishonest exaggeration is fatal to the whole claim. See: i) Lord Sumption at para 25:
“In this context, there is an obvious and important difference between a fraudulently exaggerated claim and a justified claim supported by collateral lies. Where a claim has been fraudulently exaggerated, the insured's dishonesty is calculated to get him something to which he is not entitled. The reason why the insured cannot recover even the honest part of the claim is that the law declines to sever it from the invented part. The policy of deterring fraudulent claims goes to the honesty of the claim, and both are parts of a single claim…” ii) Lord Hughes at para 51: “It has been common ground between the parties, and is indisputable, that the fraudulent claims rule is well established in English law and that it operates to bar the whole of the policyholder's claim where that claim is either wholly invented or fraudulently exaggerated. The claiming policyholder, if he is found fraudulently to have exaggerated his claim, recovers nothing; he does not recover the unexaggerated part. The issue in this case has been whether that rule extends also to bar the claim where the insured has not invented or exaggerated the claim but has employed what has been termed a “fraudulent device”
. By that, in this special context, is meant a lie or other fraud in the presentation of the claim to the insurers, in a case where the underlying claim is in fact good in the amount claimed. Typically the fraudulent device is bogus evidence of some kind advanced in support of the claim in order to bolster it. Plainly, a fraudulent claim, properly so called, ie one which is either wholly invented or fraudulently exaggerated, may also be supported by bogus evidence of this kind. But in the terminology of insurance law, the expression “fraudulent device”, which derives from language adopted in times past by express clauses in some policies, has been used conveniently to refer only to those cases where the underlying claim, even though supported by bogus evidence or some other fraud, is good. I gratefully adopt Lord Sumption JSC's expression, “collateral lie” to describe this situation. In the vernacular, the situation contemplated might be described as the policyholder “gilding the lily”.”[51]What happened here is that Mr Elliott advanced a single claim of alleged subsidence to the garages by his notification of 24th July 2018. There was then debate between the parties as to this claim. Further investigations were carried out. To some extent this process was delayed by the lockdowns which occurred throughout most of 2020 and 2021.[52]In or about October 2021, as these restrictions were beginning to ease, Mr Elliott asked Mr Norman to quote for some works to the garages, namely their conversion into a habitable space. These were fairly straightforward building works, and Mr Norman was a fairly straightforward builder. He was not a specialist in underpinning.[53]Mr Norman provided such a quotation on or about 1st November 2021. This accurately recorded the proposed works, which had nothing to do with subsidence, cracks or structural underpinning:
“Re: The Old Vicarage Take up middle garage floor Floating floor to whole area with DPM 100mm, Celotex and board All walls battened with DPC behind All walls to have insulated plaster board False partition to number 2 garage door Calculations for RSJ to open up garage one / structural engineer Insulate all roof space, minimum of 300mm Tack and skim All electrics All plumbing Doors and cladding in place of garage one door Form opening in the back of garage 2 for patio doors Please Note This does not include any decorating or floor coverings All for the sum of £18,750 plus VAT”
Take up middle garage floor Floating floor to whole area with DPM 100mm, Celotex and board All walls battened with DPC behind All walls to have insulated plaster board False partition to number 2 garage door Calculations for RSJ to open up garage one / structural engineer Insulate all roof space, minimum of 300mm Tack and skim All electrics All plumbing Doors and cladding in place of garage one door Form opening in the back of garage 2 for patio doors Please Note This does not include any decorating or floor coverings All for the sum of £18,750 plus VAT”

Please Note This does not include any decorating or floor coverings

[54]Mr Elliott was, of course, quite entitled to carry out such works, but he was well aware that he could not recover the cost thereof under the Policy. He, therefore, pretended in his email of 16th November quoted above that these works were “to underpin the garage block in line with the recommendations of Ground Engineering copied to you 3 years ago.”[55]On 24th November, Mr Elliott dug himself in deeper with an email to Mr Hadley, which attached a purported quotation from Mr Norman dated 11th November and which stated:
“I am obviously not I impressed being asked to wait further not least having been sent a letter by PB sent to you 21/10/21 that should have been brought to my attention. To be asked to wait further having filed my claim in 2018 to be honest is embarrassing. I am afraid I am advised I have a duty to mitigate ongoing damages and to this end the garages are now being underpinned in line with the findings of ground engineering, Steven Bacon and Smithers Purslow copied to you. I attach the quotation in this regard and the first payment I have made towards this work. Please confirm my insurer will meet these costs failing which I am advised to issue a claim this week.”
[56]The attached quotation looked similar to the real quotation of 1st November. However, it contained a number of new items, intended to give the impression that these works were all about structural underpinning of the garages. In particular the quotation referenced the following:
“Insert jack/wall supports Excavate dig out trenches as per structural engineer report Concrete mix to underpin with Anchors”
.

Excavate dig out trenches as per structural engineer report

[57]Having heard Mr Norman give evidence I am wholly satisfied that he had no role in the creation of the false quotation and knew nothing about the scope of this (quite specialist) work. He reacted with incredulity to the notion that he might have been carrying out underpinning with Anchors.[58]Mr Elliott’s subsequent conduct only serves to reinforce the impression that this was a deliberate and dishonest attempt to get from the Insurers money to which he knew he was not entitled. Why else convene a meeting with Mr Norman three years later and offer him a large sum of money not to testify?[59]Furthermore, Mr Elliott’s attempts at this trial to explain the two quotations have only served to deepen the mire of dishonesty. In their written opening, Mr Munro and Mr Chai, who appear for the Claimant, offered the following explanation of what had gone on:
“24. The Claimant and Mr Norman discussed the structural engineers’ reports. Mr Norman agreed to do the work as per the reports. Mr Norman and the Claimant agreed that the quotation dated 1 November 2021 needed to be amended and updated to reflect the structural engineers’ reports and to include the said underpinning. 25. Mr Norman then told the Claimant that he had fallen out with his wife and she had thrown Mr Norman out of the house. Mr Norman said that his wife would not amend the quotation dated 1 November 2021 for him given that they had fallen out and Mr Norman therefore asked the Claimant to do so for him. The Claimant did so and accordingly amended the quotation dated 1 November 2021 so as to produce the quotation dated 11 November 2021”
[60]This was absurd and, again, an insult to the intelligence of the court. As Mr Norman pointed out in evidence, he would scarcely have agreed to expand the scope of work into the unfamiliar territory of underpinning for exactly the same amount of money. And the idea that Mr Norman was incapable of making a few modest textual amendments to his quotation was equally implausible.[61]Faced with these difficulties, the closing submissions on behalf of Mr Elliott took a different tack, stating:
“37. C’s position is as follows. As at November 2021, C had waited over 3 years since notifying the claim under the policy and D had not provided him with any assistance. He was left with a property suffering subsidence. That made it impossible to sell, save for to a cash buyer at a large discount. Mortgage lenders will not support a purchase of a home with ongoing subsidence. But that was what D’s loss adjuster and all the other experts had reported. C was in financial trouble and needed to sell. D was giving C no assistance however. 38. C deployed the quotation to obtain an interim payment. He thought that he was entitled to that under the Policy. He thought that KBS works were recoverable under the policy because they did stabilise the WE. 39. C’s evidence about the quotation was extremely confused. It is accepted that it was unreliable. C appeared to say contradictory things at different times. He was under the influence of heavy drugs and was unwell. C accepts that his claim on the quotation falls away. He has failed to prove that the KBS works were a necessary consequence of the subsidence. The KBS works did not include underpinning (although C thought that they would, or might, at least to the piers supporting the flitch beam). 40. C was not dishonest. He was confused and vulnerable. He lacked dishonest intent.”
[62]Whilst no criticism can attach to Counsel for doing the best they could on the basis of their instructions, this seems to be an attempt to jettison the claim on the false quotation, and the explanations proffered up to this point as to its authenticity. As I understand it, Mr Munro and Mr Chai make the bold submission that they can cut out the part of the claim supported by the false quotation but succeed upon the balance.[63]If correct, that would be an extraordinary result. The effect of this submission is that an insured can put forward a claim which is good in parts but fraudulent in other parts. The insurers have to work out which parts are good and which parts are dishonest. The insured suffers no penalty for the latter but recovers the good parts. I am satisfied that this does not represent the law.[64]There was, as the above extract from the submissions makes clear, a single claim, the one made in July 2018. The November 2021 emails requested an interim payment on account of that claim. In support of that request, Mr Elliott created and then relied upon a false quotation.[65]This is a classic case, in my judgment, of an insured, who, if found fraudulently to have exaggerated his claim, recovers nothing; he does not recover the unexaggerated part. This is also a case of knowingly making a fraudulent or exaggerated claim under the policy or knowingly making a false statement in support of a claim or submitting a knowingly false or forged document in support of a claim, within the meaning of Condition 7 set out above and with the consequences which there apply.[66]Mr Munro and Mr Chai seek to escape from these conclusions by pointing to the wording of section 12 of the 2015 Act. I do not agree with those submissions: i) By section 12(1)(a) if the insured makes a fraudulent claim under a contract of insurance, the insurer is not liable to pay the claim. ii) That is what has occurred here: Mr Elliott has knowingly exaggerated his claim under the Policy or knowingly made a false statement in support of a claim and submitted a knowingly false or forged document in support of the claim. iii) By sections 12(1)(c) and (2), in addition, the insurer may by notice to the insured treat the contract as having been terminated with effect from the time of the fraudulent act. iv) If so (not relevant here), by sections 12(3) and (4), insurers may still be liable for losses incurred or claims made before the time of the fraudulent act. v) But we are not concerned here with other losses incurred or claims made before November 2021. There is a single claim which has been fraudulently exaggerated and which relies upon false documents.[67]For these reasons, I would answer issue 8 by saying that Mr Elliott did commit fraud as alleged by the Insurers. E. Issue 5[68]This issue is “What is the meaning and effect of the email sent by Plum Underwriting to the Claimant dated 20 June 2019?”[69]On 20th June 2019, Plum Underwriting, as agents for the Insurers, stated that:
"underwriters have responded by advising there are no underwriting issues and liability is accepted."
. Mr Elliott submits that this email means what it says, i.e. that liability was accepted so that the Insurers admitted that they were liable in respect of subsidence to the Western Extension/Garage Block in the Policy Period.[70]In support of this submission, reliance is placed upon CPR 14.1 which provides:
“Admissions made before commencement of proceedings 14.1(1) A person may, by notice in writing— (a) admit the whole or any part of another party's case before commencement of proceedings (a "pre-action admission"); (b) withdraw a pre-action admission before commencement of proceedings, if the person to whom the admission was made agrees. (2) After commencement of proceedings— (a) any party may apply to the court for judgment on the pre-action admission; and (b) the maker of the pre-action admission may apply to the court for permission to withdraw it.”
[71]The Claimant further points out that he places reliance upon this admission in his Particulars of Claim and that the Insurers have not denied the pre-action admission nor applied to withdraw it.[72]I do not agree with this submission. All that the email admitted was that the Policy responded to the claim which had been made on it in principle. There were “no underwriting issues”; i.e. the Insurers were not seeking to avoid the Policy. The email did not admit the existence or cause of any damage within the Policy Period, still less the extent of any claim. It follows that it was not necessary for the Insurers to apply to withdraw the admission.[73]The flaw in the Claimant’s case in this respect is the (illogical) leap from the undoubted admission that there were “no underwriting issues” to the contention that the Insurers admitted that they were liable in respect of subsidence to the Western Extension/Garage Block in the Policy Period.[74]Obviously, even though there were no underwriting issues, it was still necessary for the Claimant to establish that: i) Subsidence as defined in the Policy had occurred; ii) to the Western Extension/Garage Block; iii) in the Policy Period.[75]To suggest otherwise would mean that by this email the Insurers were potentially admitting liability in relation to any insured peril to any part of the Property at any time. Those matters clearly remained for investigation and proof.[76]I would therefore answer issue 5 by saying that the meaning and effect of the email sent by Plum Underwriting to the Claimant dated 20 June 2019 was that the Insurers admitted that were “no underwriting issues”; i.e. the Insurers were not seeking to avoid the Policy. F. Other issues (1, 6, 7 and 9)[77]In view of the conclusions set out above, I shall deal relatively briefly with these issues and in a somewhat different order. All of these issues really go to the extent of Mr Elliott’s recovery in the event that liability were to be established. Since the claim fails because of my answers to issues 2 and 8, the extent of recovery is academic.[78]Issue 9 asks “If the Defendant is liable to the Claimant, what is the appropriate award of damages?”[79]In his Schedule of Loss, Mr Elliott claims the following relief: “(a) the cost of remedying the subsidence to the Property, currently estimated by the Claimant to be £553,504.77 plus VAT, £664,205.72. A quotation breaking down that estimated figure is attached. (b) the cost of alternative accommodation while such repairs are carried out, currently estimated by the Claimant to be £45,000, being anticipated rent of £5,000 of alternative suitable premises in which to live for the estimated 9 month period of remedial works; (c) the cost of remedial works to the garages paid in 2021 to prevent the garages from collapsing due to the supporting walls therein failing as a result of the subsidence. £22,500; (d) interest at a commercial rate, 8%, on net sale proceeds of circa £800,000 that would have been received on or about 31 December 2019 but for the Defendants’ aforesaid breach of contract, £307,600. (e) In the alternative to (d) the Claimant claims: (e) the following interest relating to loans which the Claimant has had to service, which interest would have been avoided had the Claimant received the said net proceeds of sale of £800,000 on or about 31 December 2019.

(c) and (e) were not pressed in closing)

[80]As regards item (a), Mr Elliott relied upon a quotation from HEB Contractors in the sum of £553,000 odd plus VAT. However, it was clear that this related to a much wider scope of underpinning than that required to the Western Extension/Garage Block. To deal with this point, Mr Al Karfan attempted, while giving evidence, to assess on a “back of the envelope” basis what might be the cost of underpinning to the Western Extension/Garage Block only.[81]The court simply could not assess damages on this basis. Were the Insurers liable, the extent of that liability would be the reasonable cost of remedying the Subsidence to the Western Extension/Garage Block which occurred in the Policy Period and which had not started before that Period. This would require a careful analysis of exactly what damage occurred and when, and what the necessary scope of work would be to respond thereto. This has not been attempted: in the absence of any such analysis, it would be impossible to award any particular sum. This is not a case where the court should do the best that it could: there are simply too many imponderables to arrive at any satisfactory assessment of damages.[82]There is no or no adequate evidence to support the claim at (b). Mr Elliott has not demonstrated that it would be necessary for him to move out while works were carried out to the Western Extension/Garage Block, still less that this would be for 9 months or at £5,000 per month.[83]The basis of the claim at (d) is that the Property would have been sold, and, indeed, was subject to a satisfactory offer, in 2018 but that the sale fell through because of the discovery of the subsidence. There is no evidence to support this claim, apart from vague and contradictory assertions from Mr Elliott. I have already indicated that he is not a witness upon whom reliance could be placed.[84]It follows that, if it had arisen, I would have answered issue 9 by saying that the appropriate award was nominal damages only.[85]Issue 7 asks “Has the Claimant already received compensation from any third party for any losses claimed in this claim?”[86]Mr Elliott has clearly made recoveries from various parties for very similar issues to those claimed here. However, given the views I have expressed above, I do not think it is necessary to answer this question.[87]Issue 1 asks “What was the rebuild cost of the Claimant’s property at the time of inception of the policy issued by the Defendant?”[88]This issue goes to the extent of under-insurance of the Property, which (despite Mr Elliott’s figure of £533,000) was automatically insured for a rebuild cost of £1,000,000. This issue falls to be resolved by reference to the surveying expert evidence. The experts agreed that the figure of £1,000,000 was too low for the rebuild cost but disagreed as to the extent thereof (£1.2m or £1.6m, in round figures).[89]On this issue I would prefer the evidence of Mr Galloway called by the Insurers to that of Mr Paul for Mr Elliott, for the following reasons:(1) Mr Galloway’s report provided detailed workings as to how his rates were calculated. Mr. Paul did not provide any calculations at all.(2) Mr. Galloway sensibly used the BCIS data for the relevant location (Bedfordshire) at the applicable date and then applied a percentage to make an allowance for the listed etc. nature of the Property.(3) Mr. Paul’s calculations, where revealed, show a notable undervaluation. For example, BCIS recommend 15% for professional fees. That is the percentage used by other surveyors who have considered the rebuild value of the Property. Mr. Paul used a 10% figure which he was unable to justify in cross-examination.(4) Mr. Paul’s original report was incorrect in its measurement of the Property. In the joint report he agreed that the correct area was 461m2 rather than the 436m2 which he had put forward. He should then have recalculated the rebuild cost accordingly, but he did not do so. At trial he sought to argue that, by some unspecified technique and for some undisclosed reason, he had adopted a lower rate for the larger area so as to arrive at the same result. He could not explain what this lower rate was or how he had calculated it.[90]For these reasons, if relevant, I would answer issue 1: £1,615,000.[91]Issue 6 asks “Was the property subject to relevant double insurance in respect of subsidence damage during the cover period?”[92]From 19 June 2018 to 18 June 2019 Mr Elliott held a contract of insurance with EK. The policy number was EKU001511/06/18. Subject to an excess, the EK policy provided full cover for subsidence damage to the Property throughout its cover period.[93]If the EK policy was in force covering the period when the present claim was made against the Insurers, then the following Policy condition applies:
“If You have any other insurance policies which cover the same loss, damage or liability as this policy, The insurer will pay only Their share of any claim.”
This would have the effect of reducing the present claim rateably.[94]Mr Elliott’s evidence was that he did not pay the premium because he did not want the renewal so that cover for the policy year starting 19 June 2018 was cancelled and voided ab initio. This is another example of Mr Elliott’s untruthfulness. There is no documentary evidence to support Mr Elliott’s assertions, which were clearly designed as a way round the double insurance argument otherwise open to the Insurers.[95]Alternatively, Mr Elliott submits that the EK policy did not cover subsidence to the Western Extension/Garage Block or the Eastern extension. This is on the basis that cover had only extended to that part of the Property that had already been underpinned, which the extensions had not been. I do not agree with that submission: the 2018 EK policy simply provides that “Subsidence, heave or landslip” are “insured”.[96]For these reasons I would answer issue 6: yes. G. Miscellaneous/documents[97]Despite the relatively modest size of this claim (by TCC standards at least), disclosure was carried out on a heroic scale. For example, the Claimant’s disclosure ran to almost 4,000 pages. The “Reduced Inter-parties Correspondence” was 8,000 pages long. Matters were not helped by the fact that Mr Elliott had a number of solicitors acting for him, who came on and off the record at various times. He seems to have carried out some of the disclosure tasks himself.[98]Given this chaotic situation, I asked the parties in the run up to the trial to prepare cross-examination bundles of the documents they would be referring to. These were duly prepared, on a much more modest scale. I am grateful for this assistance, which allowed the trial to proceed reasonably smoothly.[99]In the course of cross-examination Mr Cunnington put to Mr Elliott that a number of documents which he had disclosed were not genuine or had been tampered with or otherwise were not what they purported to be.[100]Mr Munro and Mr Chai objected to these lines of cross-examination, on the basis that the Insurers had not complied with CPR Part 32.19, which provides that:
“ (1) A party shall be deemed to admit the authenticity of a document disclosed to him under Part 31 (disclosure and inspection of documents) unless he serves notice that he wishes the document to be proved at trial. (2) A notice to prove a document must be served – (a) by the latest date for serving witness statements; or (b) within 7 days of disclosure of the document, whichever is later.”
[101]Mr Cunnington did not in terms admit that there had been such non-compliance, but the Insurers nonetheless made an application on 16th June 2026 seeking relief from sanctions pursuant to CPR 3.9 in respect of their failure to comply with CPR 32.19.[102]This application was heard on 17th June 2026, during the course of closing submissions. In the event, the argument was confined to four documents as follows: 1. A Knight Frank Report of 21 March 2018. 2. A letter from the Priory Medical Practice dated 22 January 2025. 3. Emails between the Claimant and Mr Norman from 1 November 2021 to 10 November 2021 4. MG11 Witness Statement of 22 July 2025.[103]After argument, I made the following[104]On 1st July 2026, Mr Elliott sent to the court by email various documents and attachments. These were not easy to follow. 105. In the meanwhile, two weeks had elapsed since the end of the trial and I had made substantial progress with theJudgment Approved by the courtfor handing down(subject to editorial corrections). Given the clear conclusions I had reached on the main issues, as set out above, it did not seem to me to be likely that burrowing into the material supplied by Mr Elliott would assist matters very much. I therefore wrote to Counsel in the following terms on 2nd July:
“I have received the below email and attachments from Mr Elliott. I cannot open a number of the enclosures and I do not fully follow all the points being made. I am well advanced in preparing my draft Judgment and have reached firm conclusions which are most unlikely to be affected by the issues ventilated on the defendant’s application of 16th June. I am also concerned that the resolution of this case should not be delayed or diverted by satellite litigation relating to the authenticity or otherwise of these documents. It seems to me that the ball is in the defendant’s court – if it wishes to pursue the application of 16th June further, we will need to reconvene, but this will delay the circulation of the draft judgment. If the defendant is content to leave matters where they stand, I will include a brief section in the Judgment reciting the history of this matter but noting that no order for relief from sanctions was ultimately made.”
[105]By email of 3rd July, Mr Cunnington confirmed that “the Defendant is content to leave matters where they stand and for the case to progress in the way you describe in the final paragraph of your email”.[106]In those circumstances, I make no further order on the application for relief from sanctions. I also make no findings as to the authenticity of the four documents mentioned in that application. That is not an entirely satisfactory outcome, since it leaves in the air various allegations of dishonesty. However, having regard to the clear conclusions I have reached on matters more central to this claim, I think that this is a better solution than embarking on a further hearing to resolve the authenticity issues.[107]By way of postscript to this judgment I should mention that the draft judgment was circulated to the parties in the usual way on Friday 3rd July 2026, with a request for corrections by Wednesday 8th July at 1600. On that day Counsel supplied an agreed list of suggested revisions, which were all of an uncontroversial/typographical nature.[108]On the same day, Mr Elliott sent to the court an “application” supported by two lengthy witness statements. I have put the word application in “” because the form N244 document did not seem to have been issued by the court, nor (as far as I could see) duly served on the defendant. The application sought the following relief:
“An Order that: The Claimant be granted permission to adduce further evidence, namely the witness statements of Steven Elliott dated and signed 8.7.26 /9.7.26 and exhibits SAFE77/88 attached thereto, pursuant to the Court's inherent jurisdiction and Overriding Objective of Civil Procedure Rule 1.1. The trial be re-opened for the limited purpose of considering this new evidence the court was defrauded and further the Defendant misled the Court making false allegations of dishonesty. The handing down of the final judgement be deferred or stayed until after the determination of this application.”
[109]I therefore wrote to Counsel in the following terms:
“I have had direct, but not read, the attached from Mr Elliott. What I propose to do is to make the corrections to the draft which you have agreed, so far as I think necessary, and then hand down the Judgment ASAP in the usual way. If either of you would like to urge me to take a different course, please let me know your position by 1600 tomorrow Thursday 9 July. My initial view is that I am now essentially functus, save for the above and save for dealing with any consequentials. If the Claimant wishes to obtain some further relief, or appeal, I think he would need to make some sort of formal application to the Court of Appeal: but that, is, of course, a matter for him/them, not me.”
[110]Owing to Counsels’ court commitments, this deadline was extended to Friday 10th July at the same time. In the meantime, I received various further material from Mr Elliott.[111]The position of Counsel as at that deadline was that: i) Mr Munro: I should consider the “application” at a hearing before handing down with a time estimate of 2 hours; ii) Mr Cunnington: the judgment should be handed down in the orthodox way as soon as possible.[112]Having considered the various materials I informed Counsel at 1800 on 10th July as follows:
“1. I agree with the position of the Defendant on this. The trial is over. The evidence has been led and the parties have made their submissions through Counsel. I have reached firm conclusions and these should be promulgated. As Lewison LJ observed in Fage UK Ltd v Chobani UK Ltd [2014] F.S.R. 29 at para 114(ii) “the trial is not a dress rehearsal. It is the first and last night of the show”. 2. I therefore make no order on the “application(s)” which Mr Elliott has made. I put this word in “” because it is not clear that any documents have been properly issued, served etc. 3. The Judgment will be handed down not before 1030 on Wednesday 15th July, to allow Mr Elliott, if so advised, to make such urgent application as he might be advised to make to another Judge or to the Court of Appeal. 4. Other consequential matters should be dealt with at an oral hearing to be fixed by Counsel’s clerks.”
H. Conclusions[113]In summary, I would answer the list of issues as follows: 1. £1,615,000. 2. No. 3. Not applicable. 4. The Claimant did not notify to the Defendant any damage within the meaning of the Policy in 2018 or at all. 5. The meaning and effect of the email sent by Plum Underwriting to the Claimant dated 20 June 2019 was that the Insurers admitted that were “no underwriting issues”; i.e. the Insurers were not seeking to avoid the Policy. 6. Yes. 7. It is not necessary to answer this question. 8. Yes. 9. Not applicable, but the Claimant would, in any event, have been entitled to nominal damages only.[114]The upshot of these answers is that the claim falls to be dismissed.[115]I invite Counsel to agree any consequential matters, failing which a short hearing will be convened to deal with the same.[116]Finally, I should say this. My findings above set out Mr Elliott’s significant and sustained dishonesty. The pub meeting with Mr Norman also appears to amount to an attempt to interfere with the proper administration of justice. Two matters in this respect should be recorded: i) During the course of Mr Elliott’s evidence, I advised him on a number of occasions that he could exercise the privilege against self-incrimination and decline to answer Mr Cunnington’s questions. He did not choose to exercise the privilege on any occasion; ii) It seems to me that it is a matter for the Insurers as to whether they wish to take further any allegations of dishonesty or the like against Mr Elliott, whether on the basis of this Judgment or otherwise.

order

“1. The Defendant is not granted permission to extend the period for notifying the Claimant of its challenge to documents 2 and 4. 2. By 4 pm on 1 July 2026 the Claimant shall: (1)State whether he maintains his position that documents 1 and 3 are authentic; (2) If so, file at Court and serve on the Defendant the native forms of documents 1 and 3 (with their meta data) and / or any additional documents on which he relies in support of his contention that documents 1 and 3 are authentic. 3. The Defendant’s application in respect of documents 1 and 3 is adjourned.”