Court of Appeal hears appeal over insurer’s liability after door supervisor injury

The Court of Appeal gave judgment on 27 October 2026 in Makin v Protec Security Group, an appeal about whether a security firm's insurer is liable to a man who suffered a stroke after an incident with door supervisors.

Background

On 6 August 2017 Daniel Makin was ejected from the Muse Bar and Restaurant in Oldham by two door supervisors. There was an altercation outside, during which one supervisor forced him to the ground and held him in a headlock. Mr Makin stood up, walked away and took a taxi home. Two days later he was found to have suffered a stroke, which left him with serious neurological difficulties.

The restaurant was operated by The Restaurant Muse Limited. The door supervisors were engaged by Protec Security Group Limited. On 3 August 2020 Mr Makin issued proceedings against the restaurant operator as first defendant and Protec as second defendant. The claim against the restaurant operator was later discontinued. Protec went into liquidation on 10 July 2023. The next day a judge found that the stroke was caused by the assault and entered judgment against Protec, with damages to be assessed.

Mr Makin then joined Protec's public liability insurer, QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited, relying on the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. QBE had declined liability under the policy. It contended that it could rely on policy terms requiring prompt notification by the insured, which Protec allegedly failed to give.

The question

The central issue was whether QBE could refuse to deal with the claim because of the policy's claims conditions. One condition required the insured to send on any letter, writ or summons "immediately". Another required notification within a set period of the insured knowing of something that might give rise to a claim.

The first-instance ruling

In April 2025 His Honour Judge Pearce held in the High Court that QBE was not liable to Mr Makin ([2025] EWHC 895 (KB)). He found that Protec had breached both conditions and that they were conditions precedent to liability, so QBE could refuse indemnity as of right. He added that, had the question arisen, QBE could not have shown that refusing cover was a proper exercise of any contractual discretion.

The appeal

Mr Makin appealed on three grounds:

• the judge was wrong to find that Protec breached the condition on notifying matters that might give rise to a claim;
• the judge was wrong to find that Protec breached the condition on forwarding letters;
• QBE's right to "refuse to deal with the relevant claim" could be exercised only on rational grounds.

QBE's respondent's notice raised further points, including whether the earlier judgment against Protec bound the insurer.

The appeal was heard on 14 and 15 October 2026 by Lady Justice King, Lord Justice Stuart-Smith and Lady Justice Cockerill. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith gave the judgment.

Sources

• Daniel Makin v Protec Security Group Limited [2026] EWCA Civ 1367, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 27 October 2026: https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewca/civ/2026/1367