Clare Dixon KC

“Clare is formidably clever and understands the nuts and bolts of insurance.” – Chambers & Partner, 2023

“She is quick to get to the real issues of the dispute, provides concise advice, and is very good with clients when difficult advice needs to be delivered.” – Legal 500, 2022

“Clare has had a great year and she is very reliable.” “She is very robust in her views and doesn’t sit on the fence.” –Chambers & Partners, 2022

“Firm in her view, all over the detail and one of my top three seniors. She is superb both on her feet and on paper, and delivers superb results.” – Legal 500, 2021

“A go-to senior barrister who is more than capable of dealing with heavyweight cases.” “She’s completely on top of the technical legal arguments in cases.” – Chambers & Partners, 2021

“A formidable opponent because of her robust style in written and oral advocacy and in negotiations.” – Legal 500, 2020

Clare’s practice includes a substantial insurance element. She has appeared three times in the Supreme Court in insurance cases including, most recently, in the FCA Test Litigation.  In 2020 Clare was shortlisted by Chambers & Partners for “Insurance Junior of the Year”.

Professional Indemnity Insurance

With extensive experience in both professional liability and insurance matters, Clare is frequently instructed to advise in respect of non-disclosure, aggregation, successor practice and the interpretation of professional indemnity policies. Her instructions have ranged across a broad range of professions including solicitors, mortgage intermediaries, surveyors and debt recovery agents. Clare has particular interest in, and experience of, dishonesty issues and has acted for both insurers and insureds in relation to such matters.

Clare (led by Mark Cannon QC) appeared for the successful insurers in the Supreme Court case of Impact Funding Solutions Limited v AIG Europe Limited [2016] UKSC 57; [2017] AC 73. Impact considered the ambit of the “trade debts” exclusion in solicitors’ professional indemnity policies and whether it excluded a solicitor’s liability to a disbursement funding provider. The Supreme Court also gave important guidance on the construction of clauses which, while worded in terms of exclusion, do no more than to define the extent of the liability or duty to which one party of a contract is to be subject.

Other cases

• Advising a professional indemnity insurer following a claim against its former insured arising out of unauthorised withdrawals being made from client account leading to a claim worth about £1million.
• Advising and acting for an insured valuer in an action against its professional indemnity insurers arising out of the scope of notifications made in the course of a policy year.
• Advising reinsurers on a claim (said to be worth £40million) as to whether a claim has been properly notified as a circumstance given the wording of the underlying Financial Institutions Policy.
• Advising and acting for an insurer in an arbitration concerned with whether a notification was of a specific number of transactions or was a “can of worms” type notification.
• Acting for a solicitor against whom allegations of fraud, and claims for reimbursement, have been made by insurers who provided cover in three successive years.
• Acting for an insurer (led by Justin Fenwick QC) in an arbitration to determine who had first been notified of a number of claims with a value of about £2million. The case turned on whether, in the circumstances of this case, file requests by a lender comprised a notification of circumstances.
• Acting for an insurer (led by Justin Fenwick QC) in an arbitration to determine which insurer was on risk for a number of claims which were said to have been notified as part of a “can of worms” notification to insurers.
• Acting for a professional indemnity insurer (led by Justin Fenwick QC) in a claim against their former insured: Travelers Insurance Co Ltd & Denton Wilde Sapte v Advani [2012] EWHC 623. The case was concerned with whether the former employee had acted fraudulently so as to entitle the insurer to recover costs which they had expended in defending both the former employee and her then employer in a previous action.
• Acting for a valuer’s professional indemnity insurer initially (alone) to advise on the scope of the cover and the year which was potentially on risk and then (led by the then Sue Carr QC) to advise on whether insurers were entitled to decline cover to the insureds for dishonestly failing to disclose the existence of a potential claim prior to the renewal of the policy.

Other Forms of Insurance

Clare is frequently instructed to act for insurers/insured in cases arising out of other types of policies and is familiar with the particular issues around other specialist areas of insurance such as D&O, Motor Trade, Personal Accident, EL/PL and Fire policies.

Featured cases

• Acting (led by David Turner QC) for RSA in the FCA Test Case about the response of non-damage business interruption extensions to the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Advising, pursuant to the Insurance Act 2015, on whether a fair presentation of the risk had been given and, if it had not, whether the insurer was entitled to avoid the contract the consequence of which would be that the insured was uninsured for an employee’s high value personal injury claim.
• Providing an opinion on English Law to the Belgian Court on a number of issues including in particular the operation of the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 in relation to a claim arising out of a fire in a steam boiler.
• Advising an insurer under a Design and Construct Professional Indemnity Policy as to whether the policy covered claims for liquidated damages arising out of construction disputes.
• In 2012, the Supreme Court handed down judgment in the Employers’ Liability Policy Trigger Litigation. This was the successful culmination of several years work during which Clare (led by the then Jeremy Stuart-Smith QC and Leigh-Ann Mulcahy QC) had represented Zurich Insurance Company at a 9 week trial in front of Burton J, a 3 week hearing before the Court of Appeal and a 2 week hearing in the Supreme Court. The case was concerned with the proper interpretation of employers’ liability policies which were written on an “injury sustained” or “disease contracted” basis and whether they would respond to mesothelioma claims at the time of inhalation or when the tumour developed. The Supreme Court found, by a majority, that such policies should respond at the date of inhalation.
• Since Trigger Clare has been instructed to act on other matters concerning notifications to EL and PL insurers.

Clare is the current editor of the “Members and Managing Agents at Lloyd’s” chapter in Jackson & Powell. She regularly gives talks and seminars on insurance law.