National Apprenticeship Week – Simran Matharu, Apprentice Solicitor
This is an exciting National Apprenticeship Week for Fenchurch Law, as this year, we have our first apprentice on board. To mark NAW 2025, we asked legal apprentice Simran Matharu to share her experiences so far on the City Century apprenticeship scheme.
I’m excited to be Fenchurch Law’s first apprentice, choosing a degree apprenticeship was the perfect path for me, allowing me to gain real-world legal experience while working towards my qualification. Fenchurch Law’s specialist focus and supportive environment make it the ideal place to start my career, and I look forward to learning from experts in the field. Being part of the City Century apprenticeship scheme is empowering from my perspective. The programme not only creates valuable opportunities but also organises insightful events for current apprentices, featuring inspiring individuals from whom I gain invaluable knowledge.
I have always known that the traditional post-school route into university was not for me. However, I still wanted to pursue a higher education, and despite not wanting to follow a conventional route, I still wanted to embark on a conventional career. Having grown up in a family with many lawyers, I knew that a legal role was something I would do well in.
It has been really encouraging to see that saying no to university is no longer a limitation. In fact, saying no to university has helped me onto the job ladder quicker than a degree, and has offered me stability in the early stages of my career.
My day to day is very varied, and my first couple of years here will be mostly centered on integrating me into the office and learning about the industry we work in. In a week I spend four days working at Fenchurch Law as an apprentice and then one day studying at university.
This is my first job, so it has been helpful and enlightening to start in the operations team. I work with the operations team, performing tasks from billing, to answering calls, as well as saving and posting invoices. But I have also learnt about new software like Salesforce, Amiqus and Quill. I’m looking forward to moving onto Business Development in the coming year, as I’d love to learn more about how a successful boutique law firm grows and establishes its strong reputation.
At the end of my six years, I will have obtained both an LLB (Hons) in Legal Practice Skills and a SQE Qualification to become an England & Wales Solicitor, which will be great. But I think that a major benefit of this apprenticeship is that I will have gained a true understanding of working within the legal environment.
I have already learnt so much about myself, and have developed new skills that are only realised when you have participated in office life.
Having studied Philosophy, Politics, and Spanish in school, the insurance world was not something I knew a great deal about, like many my age. Instead I kept my options open, applying for as many legal apprenticeships as I could. Since joining Fenchurch Law, the team have been great at introducing me to the insurance market, and it is something I have now taken a real interest in.
I feel lucky to have already started working in such a specialised, niche area. I am extremely grateful for this opportunity and I am really excited to see what I can achieve in the next six years.
‘We are excited to be part of this initiative and it has been a privilege to have Simran join the team. She has already shown herself to be a real asset and we are looking forward to seeing her grow during her time with us and to being part of her journey to qualification.’ - Joanna Grant, Managing Partner at Fenchurch Law.
Clarendon v Zurich: Proposal Insolvency Questions Narrowly Construed
In a judgment handed down on 13 February 2025, the High Court upheld an application to strike out parts of an insurer’s Defence, in a coverage dispute arising from £8 million fire losses at a dental practice in Leeds. The decision is welcome news for policyholders and brokers, supporting a narrow approach to interpretation of insurer questions on insolvency of corporate entities related to the proposer, in statements of fact prior to inception of the policy.
Fenchurch Law act for the claimants, Clarendon Dental Spa LLP (the ‘LLP’) and Clarendon Dental Spa (Leeds) Limited (‘Clarendon’), in their action against Zurich and Aviva, following insurers’ refusal to indemnify property damage and business interruption losses arising from a catastrophic fire in June 2021. Following commencement of proceedings, settlement with Aviva was agreed on commercial terms, and trial of the claim against Zurich is listed for hearing in May 2025.
Duty of Fair Presentation
Zurich alleged that Clarendon had breached its duty of fair presentation in failing to disclose the insolvency of two companies (‘PDS’ and ‘JHP’) that shared a common director with Clarendon and the LLP. These entities were former partners of the LLP and resigned in 2014, before entering into creditors’ voluntary liquidation, following a business restructuring which led to the formation of Clarendon. The LLP continued to own the freehold of the premises. Prior to 2006, the freehold was owned by Back-to-back Investments Ltd (‘BTB’), a company in which the dentist owner of Clarendon was a director. BTB entered insolvent liquidation in December 2009.
As part of the insurance renewal process, a statement of facts was provided to Zurich, including an ‘Insolvency Question’: “Have you or any partners, directors or family members involved in the business … Been declared bankrupt or insolvent, or been disqualified from being a company director?”. Clarendon answered ‘No’. A proposal form was given to Aviva, including a declaration that “Neither You or Your directors or partners involved with The Business or any other company or business have … in the last ten years been declared bankrupt or insolvent or been the subject of bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings or been disqualified as a company director”.
Under section 3 of the Insurance Act 2015, an insured is required to make a fair presentation of the risk, including disclosure of every material circumstance that the insured knows or ought to know, ensuring that every material representation as to a matter of fact is substantially correct. Disclosure is not required of a circumstance as to which the insurer waives information (section 3(3)(c)).
Zurich’s Defence stated that Clarendon breached this duty by incorrectly answering the Insolvency Question and failing to disclose the liquidations. Clarendon argued that on its true construction, the subjects of the Insolvency Question were limited to Clarendon and its current directors only (and not other corporate entities that a partner/director of Clarendon had previously been involved with), so the answer provided was correct. The insurers advanced a broader interpretation covering any partner in any partnership, and any director of any company, that is or was involved in Clarendon’s business as a dental practice, including the LLP as owner of the freehold and the former operator of the dental practice prior to restructuring.
Contract Interpretation and Waiver
Applying the Supreme Court decision in Wood v Capita Insurance [2017], the Court held that a reasonable person would objectively understand the Insolvency Question as relating only to insolvencies of current partners or directors of the policyholder, and not former partners or members of the LLP.
A special rule applies where a question asked by an insurer is ambiguous. As explained by Snowden J in Ristorante v Zurich [2021]: when the court is interpreting questions posed by insurers, rather than a negotiated contract term, any genuine ambiguity is resolved in favour of the applicant. If there are two rival constructions, both of which are objectively reasonable, the insurer cannot impugn as misrepresentation an answer which a reasonable person would not consider to be false.
The questions were contained in standard form documents issued to policyholders, hence the reference to “partners, directors or family members”, used disjunctively to cover the various possibilities that a policyholder is a partnership, a company, or a sole trader. The wording should naturally be read as referring to current partners and directors, at the date of the question, not to former ones.
The Court also noted the practical difficulties that would be faced in answering the Insolvency Question, if it meant any entity ‘involved’ with the business, as alleged by Zurich. There would need to be an inquiry into the circumstances not only of the policyholder’s own former partners or directors, but also those of predecessor owners or operators of the business, and evaluation of whether any potentially relevant person was sufficiently involved to require investigation - placing an unrealistic and unnecessary burden on policyholders to determine those ‘materially involved’.
It was therefore held that Clarendon answered the questions correctly but even if they had not, they were at best ambiguous and that ambiguity would be interpreted in favour of the policyholders. Further, Zurich and Aviva waived any right to disclosure of the fact of the liquidations, by asking the insolvency questions in the terms presented. The Court therefore agreed to strike out parts of Zurich’s Defence, in relation to alleged material non-disclosures on insolvency.
Implications
The case serves as a timely reminder on the need for clarity in proposal form questions and answers, to avoid disputes. Insurers should ask carefully worded enquiries to sufficiently investigate at the outset, and any attempt to re-write or extend the scope of such questions at the claims stage should be refused.
Read the full judgment here.
Authors:
Daniel Robin, Deputy Managing Partner
Pawinder Manak, Trainee Solicitor
Fenchurch Law Appoints Abigail Smith as an Associate
Abigail Smith joined the London Fenchurch team earlier this year, on January 6th. With her she brings a wealth of experience, after working as an Associate in the Financial Services Disputes and Investigations team at Eversheds.
In her previous role, Abigail specialised in resolving high value and complex insurance disputes on behalf of policyholders, brokers and other large corporates. Abigail has experience in the global legal insurance market, working representing leading international brokers, firms, and banks.
Managing Partner at Fenchurch Law, Joanna Grant, commented: “We are very pleased to welcome Abigail to the team. Her legal expertise will be invaluable to Fenchurch Law as we look to deliver on our commitment to provide the highest quality insurance advice to both brokers and policy holders here in the UK, and across the globe.”
Abigail Smith added: “I was attracted to Fenchurch Law initially by the firm’s excellent reputation within the legal insurance market, and unwavering commitment to levelling the playing field for policyholders in coverage disputes. Upon joining the firm, I was delighted to find myself part of a collegiate team of genuine insurance specialists whose values and culture are as impressive as their level of expertise.”