The High Court gave judgment on 20 October 2026 in a mother and son's claim against their home insurer under a 2013-14 policy, concerning storm and subsidence damage and dealing with liability only.
Key facts
- Who: The claimants, a mother and son in Slough, and their home insurer, HDI Global Specialty SE.
- From: 20 October 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Shoba Patel & Anor v HDI Global Specialty SE, [2026] EWHC 2602 (KB)
In Shoba Patel & Anor v HDI Global Specialty SE [2026] EWHC 2602 (KB), Rory Dunlop KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge in the King's Bench Division, handed down judgment on 20 October 2026 after a trial on 6 to 9 October 2026.
Background. The claimants, Mrs Shoba Patel and Mr Anil Nicky Patel, are a mother and son who live in a semi-detached house in Slough. Mrs Patel is the named insured and legal owner. Mr Patel claims a beneficial interest. They sought an indemnity under a home insurance policy in force from 15 October 2013 to 14 October 2014, for storm damage from a storm around 14 February 2014 and for subsidence damage.
The claimants said the storm displaced the front gable and caused related damage. The insurer said the storm damage within the policy was limited and that repairs connected to the storm had been done or paid for. It did not accept that there had been any subsidence damage, certainly not in the policy period.
The delay. The judge noted that the claim took an extraordinarily long time to reach court. The damage was said to have appeared in early 2014, and the trial came more than 12 years later. He attributed the delay to the claim being filed just before the limitation period and then being pursued slowly. The claim was issued on 11 February 2020.
The evidence. Structural engineering experts for each side gave oral evidence. The judge found the house was built around 1935. The experts agreed it was built on very shallow foundations, that the soil carries a low risk of subsidence, and that the front gable is not restrained. The insurer's loss adjuster in 2014 thought the gable damage was historic. The claimants' expert attributed it to wind suction in the storm. The insurer's expert said the wind speeds were insufficient to cause a well-maintained gable wall to fail.
The claimants had also made a subsidence claim to a previous insurer in 2003, which was linked to a tree that was later removed.
Scope of the judgment. The parties agreed that the judgment would address liability only. The claim form stated £150,000, and the claimants' updated schedule of loss, filed in August 2026, claimed in the region of £420,000.
What this means for homeowners
This item reports the background, the issues and the evidence in the judgment. Anyone with an interest in the outcome on liability should read the full judgment.
Sources
- Shoba Patel & Anor v HDI Global Specialty SE, [2026] EWHC 2602 (KB), High Court (King's Bench Division), 20 October 2026