Ahmed v White & Co and Allianz – notifiable, or notified?

In a recent judgment, the High Court considered in detail the scope of a notification made by an accounting firm (White & Co) to its professional indemnity insurers: Ahmed & ors v White & Company (UK) Limited and Allianz [2025] EWHC 2399. The case serves as a reminder that even if facts or circumstances known to the insured are sufficient as to be notifiable, they will not necessarily be deemed notified unless they have been adequately communicated to the insurer. Where a notification identifies only specific claimants and investments, it is not lightly re-characterised as a “hornet’s nest” or “can of worms” notification which would allow subsequent claims to attach to the policy.

Background

This was a claim pursued against White & Co (the insured) and Allianz (its professional indemnity insurer) under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. The claimants were investors advised by White & Co on high-risk investments, including EIS and related schemes. They alleged that White & Co had failed adequately to warn of the risks associated with those investments. They sought to access cover under White & Co’s professional indemnity policy with Allianz.

Scope of White & Co’s notification

The court considered three categories of communication during the policy period and their effect:

• The “Akbar Letters” – these were letters written by the claimants’ lawyer and forwarded on to Allianz by the broker. They named 8 investments into 14 companies within a two-year timeframe. The court held that this was a notification of specific claims, not notification of circumstances, as the language used did not imply other potential claimants or problem investments beyond those identified.
• The “Block Notification” – this was a set of insurer-facing communications concerning HMRC enquiries into premature EIS relief claims, accompanied by a spreadsheet of cases. The court’s finding was that, viewed through the lens of the reasonable insurer in Allianz’ position, the Block Notification was limited to circumstances which might give rise to claims against another company named MKP (a company acquired by White & Co) and not which may give rise to claims against White & Co. Whilst White & Co’s awareness of these matters could, in principle, have supported a broader notification, that awareness was not made known to Allianz.
• The “Kennedys Documents” – these were emails between defence counsel (acting in defence of White & Co on a joint retainer with Allianz), the claimant lawyer, and defence counsel’s clients. While the content could, if validly notified to Allianz, have amounted to a notification of circumstances, there was nothing in defence counsel’s joint retainer which made clear that defence counsel would act as the Insured’s agent for the purpose of notifying circumstances to Allianz; in other words, the insurer’s receipt of it via panel solicitors (as opposed to by the Insured) did not satisfy the contractual requirement for notification “by the insured”.

In short, the court indicated that there had been sufficient material or knowledge available to the insured such that a broad “hornet’s nest” type notification of circumstances could, potentially, have been made. However, no such notification was made, and the only valid notification was that of (i) the specific Akbar claims; and (ii) a block notification applicable to MKP, not White & Co.

Commentary and practical implications

This case has not moved the goalposts on what can be notified: it is still possible for an insured to notify both claims and circumstances (within one single communication or multiple communications), and it remains possible for an insured to make a “hornet’s nest” or “can of worms” type notification of circumstances (defined in Euro Pools as the “notification of a problem, the exact scale and consequences of which are not known”).

What this case does serve to illustrate is that the courts will look closely at the language of a notification, and the policy’s notification provisions, in order to determine what exactly has been notified by an insured. Notification remains an intensely fact-sensitive issue, such that difficulties will continue to arise for insurers and insureds seeking to determine the scope of any notification of circumstances (and thus the extent to which any subsequent claims attach to a specific policy, or a particular year of account).

In assessing the scope of a notification, insurers should look closely at all relevant communications received during the policy period and carry out a critical evaluation of those communications in the context of the notification provisions found within the insurance contract.

For insureds, their brokers, and any third party claimants seeking to make a claim against insurers under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010, disciplined notification practices are important. Insureds should ensure that panel solicitor communications do not become a false comfort: unless the contract permits notice via defence counsel, they may not constitute valid notice by the insured. Unlike a broker, defence counsel appointed under a joint retainer is not the agent of an insured for giving notification to the insurer; to assume this role may put it in a position of conflict.

Considerable thought should be given to what is being notified to insurers and on what terms.