In March 2020, the UK Government began to take a series of measures to combat the transmission of COVID-19. These included informal announcements and instructions from the Prime Minister as well as the passage of primary and secondary legislation through the UK Parliament and devolved administrations. The present appeals considered the impact of these actions and measures on 28 clauses in the 21 lead policies written by the Appellant Insurers. The FCA and the Appellant Insurers agreed to submit those policy wordings for consideration with the aim of addressing issues arising from similar policies prevalent in the insurance industry.
The case was heard in July 2020 by the Divisional Court under the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme. Judgment was given on 15 September 2020 and final orders were sealed on 18 October 2020.

In March 2020, the UK Government began to take a series of measures to combat the transmission of COVID-19. These included informal announcements and instructions from the Prime Minister as well as the passage of primary and secondary legislation through the UK Parliament and devolved administrations. The present appeals considered the impact of these actions and measures on 28 clauses in the 21 lead policies written by the Appellant Insurers. The FCA and the Appellant Insurers agreed to submit those policy wordings for consideration with the aim of addressing issues arising from similar policies prevalent in the insurance industry.
The case was heard in July 2020 by the Divisional Court under the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme. Judgment was given on 15 September 2020 and final orders were sealed on 18 October 2020.

The Appellant acted as solicitor for Peak Hotels &; Resorts Ltd (“PHRL”), a company incorporated in 2014 in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). The Appellant represented PHRL in extensive litigation in England and other jurisdictions. PHRL was wound up in insolvency proceedings in the BVI and the Respondents were appointed by the BVI court to act as joint liquidators for PHRL. A dispute ensued between the Appellant and Respondents about a claim by the Appellant for unpaid legal fees owed to it by PHRL. The Respondents were ordered to pay some of the Appellant’s legal costs.
                In proceedings before the High Court, it was determined that a success fee was not recoverable from the Respondents and that the Appellant had waived its equitable lien over settlement monies that had been paid to PHRL during the litigation, when the Appellant entered into a fixed fee agreement and deed of charge with PHRL. The High Court held that the fixed fee agreement and the deed of charge were inconsistent in some respects with the Appellant’s rights under the pre-existing equitable lien. The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant’s appeal on both issues. The Appellant now appeals to the Supreme Court.