{"id":2004,"date":"2025-08-12T15:48:02","date_gmt":"2025-08-12T14:48:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/?p=2004"},"modified":"2025-08-12T15:53:49","modified_gmt":"2025-08-12T14:53:49","slug":"timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/","title":{"rendered":"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>In our article on <em>Makin v QBE<\/em> last month, we highlighted the importance of complying with conditions precedent, and noted that claimants pursuing claims under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 (\u201cthe 2010 Act\u201d) inherit both the rights and obligations of the insured. This case serves as yet another clear reminder of that principle, underlining the risks claimants face when policy conditions are not strictly observed. <\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Background<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The Claimant, Hannah Archer, issued proceedings against R\u2019N\u2019F Catering Limited (\u201cR\u2019N\u2019F\u201d) on 5 July 2022, seeking damages for personal injury following a meal at R\u2019N\u2019F\u2019s restaurant (\u201cthe Proceedings\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>R\u2019N\u2019F filed a defence in December 2020 and then entered into a members\u2019 voluntary liquidation in February 2023 (\u201cthe Insolvency\u201d). It played no active role in the Proceedings thereafter.<\/p>\n<p>By a consent order dated 9 July 2024, Riverstone Insurance (Malta) SE (\u201cRiverstone\u201d), the successor to ArgoGlobal SE, which insured R\u2019N\u2019F under a restaurant insurance policy from 18\/09\/18 \u2013 17\/09\/19 (\u201cthe Policy\u201d), was added to the Proceedings.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>The Proceedings<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Miss Archer claimed that she was entitled an indemnity from Riverstone by virtue of the 2010 Act. Specifically, she said that:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Insolvency meant that R\u2019N\u2019F\u2019s rights under the Policy had automatically transferred to her; and<\/li>\n<li>By reason of s.9(2) of the 2010 Act \u2013 which stated that anything done by a third party which, if done by the insured, would amount to fulfilment of the condition as if done by the insured \u2013 she complied with the Policy.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The question of Riverstone\u2019s liability to Miss Archer was disposed of at a preliminary issues trial. There were two issues to be determined:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Could Riverstone prove that R\u2019N\u2019F was not entitled to an indemnity under the Policy (\u201cIssue 1\u201d)?<\/li>\n<li>Could s.9(2) of the 2010 Act assist Miss Archer to render Riverstone liable on proof of R\u2019N\u2019Fs liability (\u201cIssue 2\u201d)?<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><strong><u>Issue 1<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p><u>The breaches of condition precedent<\/u><\/p>\n<p>Riverstone asserted the following breaches of condition precedent by R\u2019N\u2019F:<\/p>\n<ol>\n<li>A failure to <em>\u201cOn the happening of any event which could give rise to a claim \u2026 as soon as reasonably possible give notice to the insurer\u201d<\/em> (\u201cthe First Breach\u201d)<\/li>\n<li>A failure to <em>\u201csupply full details of the claim in writing together with any evidence and information that may be reasonably required by the Insurer for the purpose of investigating or verifying the claim \u2026 within \u2026 30 days of the event or circumstances \u2026\u201d <\/em>(\u201cthe Second Breach\u201d).<\/li>\n<li>A failure to <em>\u201ctake all reasonable precautions to prevent or diminish loss destruction damage or injury\u201d <\/em>(\u201cthe Third Breach\u201d).<\/li>\n<li>A failure to <em>\u201cprovide all help and assistance and cooperation required by the Insurer in connection with any claim\u201d <\/em>(\u201cthe Fourth Breach\u201d).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>(Collectively, \u201cthe Breaches\u201d).<\/p>\n<p>The Breaches were all largely based on the same facts.<\/p>\n<p>In a nutshell, Miss Archer first contacted R\u2019N\u2019F on 29 November 2019 to advise that she had become seriously unwell following a meal at its restaurant. Her solicitors then wrote to R\u2019N\u2019F on a several occasions, which included their sending a Claim Notification Form (\u201cCNF\u201d) and a letter on 10 January 2020 which requested R\u2019N\u2019F\u2019s insurance details. R\u2019N\u2019F did not respond.<\/p>\n<p>Miss Archer\u2019s solicitors then sent a letter of claim to R\u2019N\u2019F on 30 October 2020. That prompted R\u2019N\u2019F belatedly to notify Riverstone on 17 November 2020.<\/p>\n<p>Sedgwick, Riverstone\u2019s claims handlers, thereafter emailed R\u2019N\u2019F asking for information about the claim. That included, notably, a chaser email on 20 July 2021 which stated: <em>\u201cfailure to assist us with this matter is a breach of policy terms so if we fail to receive your response your insurer may take the decision to decline indemnity\u201d. <\/em>Indeed, it was not until October 2022 that R\u2019N\u2019F\u2019s Director, Mr Ali, engaged with Sedgwick, at which point he blamed the delay on the fact that emails had gone into a spam folder.<\/p>\n<p><u>The parties\u2019 positions<\/u><\/p>\n<p>Riverstone said there was no case for R\u2019N\u2019F to answer in respect of the Breaches. It described R\u2019N\u2019F as <em>\u201cburying its head in the sand for months and indeed years, before coming up with a \u2018dog ate my homework\u2019 series of excuses\u2019<\/em>.<\/p>\n<p>Miss Archer, perhaps unsurprisingly, did not advance a positive case as to R\u2019N\u2019F\u2019s actions. She simply said that Sedgwick took only limited steps to contact R\u2019N\u2019F for information, and that <em>\u201calarm bells should have rung\u201d<\/em> when R\u2019N\u2019F did not respond.<\/p>\n<p><u>The decision<\/u><\/p>\n<p>The court had no difficulty in finding that Riverstone was right.<\/p>\n<p>As to the First Breach, it said that any and all of the initial communications from Miss Archer and\/or her solicitors to R\u2019N\u2019F were \u201c<em>circumstances<\/em>\u201d which should have prompted R\u2019N\u2019F to notify Riverstone, and that R\u2019N\u2019F was <em>\u201cthoroughly disengaged with the threatened claim, maybe hoping that by ignoring it, it will go away\u201d<\/em>. So, because R\u2019N\u2019F did not notify Riverstone of the \u201ccircumstance\u201d until 17 November 2020, the First Breach was made out.<\/p>\n<p>As to the Second Breach, the court agreed with Riverstone that R\u2019N\u2019F repeatedly ignored Sedgwick, and had no good reason for doing so. Further, the timing of its belated engagement was redolent of a policyholder that <em>\u201cpanicked that its prior tactic of ignoring the threatened claim had failed\u201d<\/em>. The court also rejected Mr Ali\u2019s \u201cspam folder\u201d explanation; that lacked any sort of cogency, and even if it did, the court found that R\u2019N\u2019F ought to have had proper procedures in place for checking important emails.<\/p>\n<p>Based on the same factual matrix, the court found that the Third and Fourth Breaches were also made out.<\/p>\n<p>As R\u2019N\u2019F was in breach of conditions precedent to liability, Riverstone was entitled to refuse to indemnify it.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Issue 2<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Miss Archer asserted that even if R\u2019N\u2019F was in breach of condition precedent, she was nonetheless entitled to an indemnity. The gist of her argument was that R\u2019N\u2019F only became a \u2018relevant person\u2019 within the meaning of the 2010 Act at the point of the Insolvency. Thereafter, she \u201cstood ready\u201d to comply with the Policy, as shown by the fact that notifying and corresponding with Sedgwick and Riverstone\u2019s solicitors. So, her position was that anything done by her was to be treated as done by R\u2019N\u2019F, thus entitling her to an indemnity.<\/p>\n<p>She also argued that it was impossible for her to comply with the conditions precedent in the Policy <em>before<\/em> the Insolvency, as her rights only arose at that stage. That was also consistent, she said, with the 2010 Act\u2019s policy of protecting third parties in circumstances where an insured becomes insolvent.<\/p>\n<p>Riverstone disagreed. It said that any actions taken by her after the Insolvency, however reasonable, were too late, and were incapable of leading to a conclusion that she complied with the Policy.<\/p>\n<p>Although the court had considerable sympathy with Miss Archer, it found that she was nevertheless wrong. In short, it was not possible to \u201cresurrect\u201d her right to an indemnity in circumstances where that same right had already been invalidated by R\u2019N\u2019F. If it was, that would effectively mean that the conditions precedent to which was subjected were entirely different from those to which R\u2019N\u2019F were subjected. The court found no authority for such a proposition.<\/p>\n<p>The court was also unpersuaded by Miss Archer\u2019s impossibility argument. It noted that over three years passed between the first circumstance in November 2019 and the Insolvency, and no impossibility prevented R\u2019N\u2019F complying with its obligations in that time. So, as R\u2019N\u2019F had already lost its rights under the Policy when it was not faced with an impossibility, Miss Archer could not take the benefit of them now.<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Summary<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The decision in Archer is another important illustration that where an insured has already lost its rights under a policy, a claimant pursuing a 2010 Act claim stands in no better a position. Even if the failure was not of the claimant\u2019s making, that is of no consequence \u2013 the claimant does not get a second chance.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, although the judgment does not explore the point in detail, it reinforces the principle that conditions precedent, and particularly notification requirements, must be complied with strictly.<\/p>\n<p>The full judgment can be found here:<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.bailii.org\/ew\/cases\/EWHC\/KB\/2025\/1342.html\">https:\/\/www.bailii.org\/ew\/cases\/EWHC\/KB\/2025\/1342.html<\/a><\/p>\n<p><strong>Author:<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/people\/alexander-rosenfield\">Alex Rosenfield, Partner<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In our article on Makin v QBE last month, we highlighted the importance of complying with conditions precedent, and noted [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":65,"featured_media":2005,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[296,346],"class_list":["post-2004","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","tag-property-risks","tag-construction-property-risks"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent - Fenchurch Law UK<\/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-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent - Fenchurch Law UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In our article on Makin v QBE last month, we highlighted the importance of complying with conditions precedent, and noted [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Fenchurch Law UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-08-12T14:48:02+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-08-12T14:53:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/08\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1280\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Alex Rosenfield\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Alex Rosenfield\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Alex Rosenfield\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2e99871d3273d4e2e8c6ada19ba50a91\"},\"headline\":\"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-12T14:48:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-12T14:53:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1409,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Property Risks\",\"Construction &amp; Property Risks\"],\"articleSection\":[\"News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/\",\"name\":\"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent - Fenchurch Law UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-08-12T14:48:02+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-08-12T14:53:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2e99871d3273d4e2e8c6ada19ba50a91\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/6\\\/2025\\\/08\\\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":1280},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Fenchurch Law UK\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/2e99871d3273d4e2e8c6ada19ba50a91\",\"name\":\"Alex Rosenfield\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/47e9e1657d2143edf46bb80393ea32e28de9b91deb6248e2f2bbf259c4302037?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/47e9e1657d2143edf46bb80393ea32e28de9b91deb6248e2f2bbf259c4302037?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/47e9e1657d2143edf46bb80393ea32e28de9b91deb6248e2f2bbf259c4302037?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Alex Rosenfield\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/fenchurchlaw.com\\\/en-uk\\\/author\\\/alexrosenfield\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent - Fenchurch Law UK","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-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent - Fenchurch Law UK","og_description":"In our article on Makin v QBE last month, we highlighted the importance of complying with conditions precedent, and noted [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/","og_site_name":"Fenchurch Law UK","article_published_time":"2025-08-12T14:48:02+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-08-12T14:53:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":1280,"url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/08\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Alex Rosenfield","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Alex Rosenfield","Estimated reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/"},"author":{"name":"Alex Rosenfield","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#\/schema\/person\/2e99871d3273d4e2e8c6ada19ba50a91"},"headline":"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent","datePublished":"2025-08-12T14:48:02+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-12T14:53:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/"},"wordCount":1409,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/08\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg","keywords":["Property Risks","Construction &amp; Property Risks"],"articleSection":["News"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/","name":"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent - Fenchurch Law UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/08\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2025-08-12T14:48:02+00:00","dateModified":"2025-08-12T14:53:49+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#\/schema\/person\/2e99871d3273d4e2e8c6ada19ba50a91"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/08\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/6\/2025\/08\/shutterstock_2541910363-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":1280},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/timing-is-everything-part-ii-archer-v-riverstone-and-a-reminder-of-the-cost-of-not-complying-with-a-condition-precedent\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Timing is everything Part II \u2013 Archer v Riverstone and (a reminder of) the cost of not complying with a condition precedent"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/","name":"Fenchurch Law UK","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/#\/schema\/person\/2e99871d3273d4e2e8c6ada19ba50a91","name":"Alex Rosenfield","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/47e9e1657d2143edf46bb80393ea32e28de9b91deb6248e2f2bbf259c4302037?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/47e9e1657d2143edf46bb80393ea32e28de9b91deb6248e2f2bbf259c4302037?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/47e9e1657d2143edf46bb80393ea32e28de9b91deb6248e2f2bbf259c4302037?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Alex Rosenfield"},"url":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/author\/alexrosenfield\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/65"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2004"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2006,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2004\/revisions\/2006"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2005"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2004"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2004"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fenchurchlaw.com\/en-uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2004"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}