Insurance & Reinsurance
Michael regularly advises policy wording disputes for both claimants and insurers. He has been active recently in litigation concerning long-tail disease claims and the allocation of risk and liability between insurer and insured in cases of insurance gaps. He has also been heavily involved in the “Cape Litigation”, now settled, which included issues relating to subrogated claims against a co-insured and avoidance for material non-disclosure of developing knowledge of mesothelioma risks; he has advised on issues arising under the Human Rights Act in relation to retrospective legislation affecting liability insurers having a watching brief in the reference to the Supreme Court of the validity of the Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill ( UKSC 3) in which the Supreme Court struck down a bill seeking to impose liability on insurers for NHS costs of treating asbestos disease. Other recent work includes:
- Acting for tariff EL insurer at trial of avoidance issue: whether a 1964 endorsement adding an insured to an existing policy was induced by material non-disclosure; whether adverse inferences could be drawn from absence of evidence from underwriters; whether endorsement could be set aside leaving policy otherwise in force in relation to co-insured; issues of affirmation and waiver. [Note proceedings settled after trial and before judgment]
- Acting for claimants in subrogated claims under an asset sale agreement against parent company of claimant; meaning of endorsement relating to parent company’s addition as an “insured”; whether retrospective effect; if parent a co-insured what, if any, claim could be pursued in respect of periods before and after defendant became co-insured; existence and scope of implied term of sale agreement alternatively of the contract of insurance precluding subrogated claims; whether there could be apportionment in relation to “straddling” cases.
- Instructed by ABI as Intervener in Supreme Court- EL insurance, asbestos risks; uninsured periods; Mesothelioma; Compensation Act; Equitable contribution by insured; Defence costs; Subrogation.
- Acting for liability insurers facing claim under the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930; extent of pollution or contamination exclusion; non-party costs order under s 51(3) Senior Courts Act 1981.
- Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd v Aviva Plc (trial 2017 before Picken J: settled before judgment).
- Cape Distribution Ltd v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd (no 2)  EWHC 1786 (QB);  Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 1.
- Cape Distribution Ltd v Cape Intermediate Holdings Ltd (no 1)  EWHC 1119 (QB);  Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 499,
- International Energy Group Ltd v Zurich Insurance plc UK Branch (Association of British Insurers and another intervening)  UKSC 33;  A.C. 509
- Legg & Ors v Sterte Garage Ltd and Aviva Plc  EWCA Civ 97;  2 Costs L.O. 167
- Michael Kent QC reviews the Supreme Court judgments of Barclays Bank Plc & WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc
- Crown Office Chambers feature in three of The Lawyer’s Top 20 cases of 2019
- Michael Kent QC appeared on the instructions of Keogh’s for the successful appellants in Catholic Welfare Society & Ors v CD
- Inns of Court School of Law (1973 – 1975)
- BA (Hons) Politics, University of Sussex (1970 – 1973)
- Nautical College, Pangbourne (1965 – 1969)
- Recorder of the Crown Court
- Deputy High Court Judge (Queen’s Bench Division and Administrative Court).
- He is a Bencher of the Middle Temple
- London Common Law and Commercial Bar Association (Chairman 2011-13)
- Administrative Law Bar Association
- Chairman of working group on expert witnesses for Inns of Court College of Advocacy (2018)
“He has the most wonderful advocacy style – he’s calm, silky and measured.” “He is hugely intelligent and pleasure to work with.”
Chambers & Partners 2020
“He is particularly strong handling high-profile group litigation.”
Legal 500 2020
“A highly skilled advocate who is able to get to grips with the most complex of issues…The epitome of a smooth operator. An excellent QC whom I can’t recommend highly enough.”
Chambers & Partners 2018
“A very high-quality silk.”
Legal 500 2017
“He has a profound understanding of legal principles and how to construct a case.”
Legal 500 2017
“he is very well respected and you would instruct him in any significant disease cases”
Chambers & Partners 2016
very intelligent and capable of very quick thinking on his feet”
Legal 500 2016
a highly intelligent advocate, who has particular experience in group actions”
Chambers & Partners 2015
“a highly intelligent, very responsive silk”
Legal 500 2015
“extremely bright..the finest appeal advocate I have ever seen”
Chambers & Partners 2014
“good for complex cases”
Legal 500 2014