{"id":244,"date":"2021-09-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-09-19T23:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.hostingsystems.co.uk\/sg\/blog\/2021\/09\/20\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/"},"modified":"2024-08-21T16:50:02","modified_gmt":"2024-08-21T15:50:02","slug":"the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/","title":{"rendered":"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching"},"content":{"rendered":"

Welcome to the latest in the series of blogs from Fenchurch Law:\u00a0100 cases every policyholder needs to know.\u00a0<\/em>An opinionated and practical guide to the most important insurance decisions relating to the London \/ English insurance markets, all looked at from a pro-policyholder perspective.<\/p>\n

Some cases are correctly decided and positive for policyholders. We celebrate those cases as\u00a0The Good.<\/em><\/p>\n

Some cases are, in our view, bad for policyholders, wrongly decided, and in need of being overturned. We highlight those decisions as\u00a0The Bad.<\/em><\/p>\n

Other cases are bad for policyholders but seem (even to our policyholder-tinted eyes) to be correctly decided. Those cases can trip up even the most honest policyholder with the most genuine claim. We put the hazard lights on those cases as\u00a0The Ugly.<\/em><\/p>\n

#15 (The Good & Bad)<\/p>\n

West Wake Price & Co v Ching<\/em> [1957] 1 WLR 45.<\/p>\n

This case is known for three important principles of insurance law, which we consider below.<\/p>\n

The Plaintiffs (a firm of accountants) were insured by the Defendant (a Lloyd\u2019s underwriter) for any \u201cclaim\u201d in respect of an act of neglect, default or error.\u00a0 A clerk employed by the Plaintiffs had stolen \u00a320,000 which had been entrusted to the firm by a client, who duly issued a writ against the Plaintiffs for:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Damages for negligence in failing properly to supervise the clerk;<\/li>\n
  2. Monies had and received; and<\/li>\n
  3. Monies converted by the Plaintiffs for their own use.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The case is a difficult one for the modern reader, not least because the 2nd<\/sup> & 3rd<\/sup> grounds of the claim (money had & received, and conversion) are relatively unfamiliar. For present purposes, both can be regarded as the equivalent to vicarious liability for the clerk\u2019s fraud.<\/p>\n

    A further source of difficulty is that the case was concerned with an obscurely drafted and now archaic form of QC clause. This required the insurer (i) to settle a claim if it appeared likely that there would otherwise be a liability covered by the policy, but also (ii) to settle a claim which was not<\/em> likely to result in liability at trial but where the policyholder nevertheless reasonably objected to defending it (eg, because of adverse publicity).<\/p>\n

    Thus in West Wake<\/em> the Plaintiff accountants argued that the insurer was obliged to settle the claim because (i) they did indeed wish to avoid the publicity of a trial and, as they argued, (ii) \u201cthe claim\u201d based on their allegedly negligent failure to supervise the clerk was ostensibly covered by the policy.<\/p>\n

    Devlin J found in the insurer\u2019s favour, and, in so doing, established these three points of principle.<\/p>\n

    First, he distinguished between a \u201cclaim\u201d and a cause of action. He held that, in the context of a liability policy such as this one, a \u201cclaim\u201d was characterised by the object which was being claimed and was not the same as the cause of action supporting it. Thus, \u201cYou are liable to me for \u00a3100\u201d<\/em> is a claim. \u201cYou are liable to me for \u00a3100 for fraud and for negligence\u201d<\/em> is still a single claim, not two claims. This reasoning has proved crucial in the context of aggregation disputes.<\/p>\n

    Secondly, Devlin J held that, in a dispute between insured and insurer, the court will look at the substance of a claim (ie, its true underlying facts) and not how it may have been pleaded against the insured by the claimant.\u00a0 A claimant may well have his own reasons for trying to depict a fraud claim as one for negligence or a claim for poor workmanship as one for inadequate design. \u00a0(And the lesser-known corollary to that principle is that an insured, who has been held liable to a claimant in fraud, is nevertheless entitled to argue, in a subsequent dispute with his insurer, that he was not in fact fraudulent but merely negligent and thus entitled to indemnity under his policy: Omega Proteins v Aspen<\/em> [2011] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep IR 183.)<\/p>\n

    We have no hesitation in categorising both these aspects of the judgment as \u201cGood\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

    The third aspect of the judgment in West Wake<\/em> was Devlin J\u2019s view that the policy did not cover a \u201cmixed\u201d claim: a policy covering claims for negligence did not cover one based on both negligence and<\/em> fraud, let alone one which was (in his view) primarily for fraud and only secondarily for negligence.<\/p>\n

    It is not obvious how the Judge\u2019s reasoning here sits with two later and equally well-known decisions – Wayne Tank<\/em> [1974] 1 QB 557, and the \u201cMiss Jay Jay\u201d<\/em> [1987] 1 Lloyd\u2019s Rep 32. In those cases, the Court of Appeal held that, where there are two proximate causes, one of which is covered, the policy will respond if the other proximate cause is simply not mentioned but will not respond if it is specifically excluded.<\/p>\n

    In the light of those cases (and, indeed, also in the light of the Supreme Court\u2019s judgement in FCA v Arch<\/em>, considered in a previous blog<\/a>\u00a0in this series), we consider that the better analysis of the facts in West Wake<\/em> would be that the clerk\u2019s fraud and the Plaintiffs\u2019 negligent failure to supervise him were both proximate causes so that, since the former was not excluded, there would have been cover (and thus the Plaintiffs could try to insist, by virtue of the QC clause, on the claim being settled).<\/p>\n

    Devlin J\u2019s decision that, as a matter of causation, the clerk\u2019s fraud \u201ctrumped\u201d the Plaintiffs\u2019 alleged negligence seems to have been the result of a disinclination to hold that there could in practice be two <\/em>truly proximate causes of a loss, with him instead preferring the view that one of two competing causes will almost always be more dominant.<\/p>\n

    Nowadays, the courts will be far quicker to find that two causes, whether they be independent or interdependent, were both proximate.<\/p>\n

    In that respect, and in that respect only, we categorise West Wake<\/em> as \u201cBad\u201d.<\/em><\/p>\n

    Jonathan Corman<\/a>\u00a0is a Partner, and Toby Nabarro<\/a> is an Associate, at Fenchurch Law.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Welcome to the latest in the series of blogs from Fenchurch Law:\u00a0100 cases every policyholder needs to know.\u00a0An opinionated and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":81,"featured_media":245,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[133],"tags":[271],"class_list":["post-244","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly","tag-professional-risks"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nThe Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching - Fenchurch Law APAC<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching - Fenchurch Law APAC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Welcome to the latest in the series of blogs from Fenchurch Law:\u00a0100 cases every policyholder needs to know.\u00a0An opinionated and […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Fenchurch Law APAC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-09-19T23:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-08-21T15:50:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1707\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#\/schema\/person\/4e03404f65e592b774a53ac7d6b564d0\"},\"headline\":\"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-19T23:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-21T15:50:02+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/\"},\"wordCount\":1006,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Professional Risks\"],\"articleSection\":[\"The Good, the Bad and the Ugly\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/\",\"name\":\"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching - Fenchurch Law APAC\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-09-19T23:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-08-21T15:50:02+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#\/schema\/person\/4e03404f65e592b774a53ac7d6b564d0\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1707},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/\",\"name\":\"Fenchurch Law APAC\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#\/schema\/person\/4e03404f65e592b774a53ac7d6b564d0\",\"name\":\"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d91f683e19174b8227548911bd1209e66ff669c530b7adb9723deb6c548d7e00?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d91f683e19174b8227548911bd1209e66ff669c530b7adb9723deb6c548d7e00?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d91f683e19174b8227548911bd1209e66ff669c530b7adb9723deb6c548d7e00?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/author\/jctn\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching - Fenchurch Law APAC","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching - Fenchurch Law APAC","og_description":"Welcome to the latest in the series of blogs from Fenchurch Law:\u00a0100 cases every policyholder needs to know.\u00a0An opinionated and […]","og_url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/","og_site_name":"Fenchurch Law APAC","article_published_time":"2021-09-19T23:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-08-21T15:50:02+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1707,"url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro","Estimated reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/"},"author":{"name":"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#\/schema\/person\/4e03404f65e592b774a53ac7d6b564d0"},"headline":"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching","datePublished":"2021-09-19T23:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-21T15:50:02+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/"},"wordCount":1006,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg","keywords":["Professional Risks"],"articleSection":["The Good, the Bad and the Ugly"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/","name":"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching - Fenchurch Law APAC","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg","datePublished":"2021-09-19T23:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2024-08-21T15:50:02+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#\/schema\/person\/4e03404f65e592b774a53ac7d6b564d0"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/7\/2024\/08\/shutterstock_1369397003-scaled-1.jpg","width":2560,"height":1707},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/the-good-the-bad-the-ugly-100-cases-every-policyholder-needs-to-know-15-the-good-bad-west-wake-price-co-v-ching\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Good, the Bad & the Ugly: #15 (The Good & Bad). West Wake Price & Co v Ching"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#website","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/","name":"Fenchurch Law APAC","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/#\/schema\/person\/4e03404f65e592b774a53ac7d6b564d0","name":"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d91f683e19174b8227548911bd1209e66ff669c530b7adb9723deb6c548d7e00?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d91f683e19174b8227548911bd1209e66ff669c530b7adb9723deb6c548d7e00?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d91f683e19174b8227548911bd1209e66ff669c530b7adb9723deb6c548d7e00?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jonathan Corman & Toby Nabarro"},"url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/author\/jctn\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/81"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=244"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1070,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/244\/revisions\/1070"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/245"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=244"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=244"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-sg\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=244"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}