Within The Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime v Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Co (Europe) Limited & Ord  UKSC 18, the final Court ruled around the quantification of compensation open to insurers underneath the Riot Act 1886, following insured losses brought on by the London riots this year.
The main issue in dispute on appeal associated with whether persons (within this situation the respondent insurers) could claim compensation for consequential losses (for example lack of profits) under s2 from the Riot Act 1886, where damage continues to be caused to property by rioters. The problem therefore related simply to the quantification from the claims from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPC), the liability to pay for such claims no more finding yourself in issue prior to the court.
Initially instance, it absolutely was held the Riot Act provided compensation just for physical damage and never consequential loss. A Legal Court of Appeal reversed that call. The MOPC attracted the final Court. Lord Hodge, delivering the judgment from the court, permitted the appeal, saying yes with Flaux J initially instance the Riot Act, on its proper construction, and construed from the backdrop from the prior legislative history, didn’t include provide compensation for consequential losses.