High Court Rules on Pleading Fraud and Settlement Agreement Interpretation in AXA Insurance Fraud Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 3233 (KB)
Judgment on


The High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division recently delivered a judgment in AXA Insurance UK PLC v Fatjon Kryeziu & Ors, presided over by Mr Justice Johnson. This complex case involved issues pertaining to the pleading of fraud, amendments to the statement of case, disclosure obligations, and the interpretation of settlement agreements in the context of alleged fraudulent insurance claims.

Key Facts

AXA Insurance UK PLC (the appellant) had paid out on insurance claims following an alleged road traffic accident. Doubting the genuineness of the accident, the insurer subsequently brought claims in deceit and conspiracy against the respondents. Contentions arose following the appellant’s strategy of withholding key evidence until after witness statements were exchanged and the impact of a settlement agreement with some respondents on the proceedings.

During the litigation, three specific issues crystallized regarding the adequate pleading of fraud, strategic withholding of case details, and the scope of a settlement agreement in restricting findings against certain respondents. Multiple applications and appeals were made concerning these matters, culminating in a judgment that addressed each of the contentious points.

The judgment in this case delves into several legal principles important for legal professionals:

  1. Pleading Fraud: The court reaffirmed the necessity of pleading the facts on which a party relies to establish an allegation of fraud, as mandated by CPR 16.4(1) and case law. Generic assertions of fraud without supporting factual detail fail to meet this requirement.

  2. Disclosure Obligations: The court highlighted the importance of adhering to disclosure obligations, noting that willful nondisclosure or delay in disclosure to gain strategic litigation advantage is inappropriate. Standard disclosure rules under CPR 31.6 apply, and breaches can lead to sanctions unless relief from sanctions is appropriately granted.

  3. Interpretation of Settlement Agreements: A settlement agreement’s meaning derives from what parties, with all reasonable background knowledge, would have understood the words to mean. The court clarified that such agreements do not restrict a party’s ability to continue litigating against others not covered by the agreement or to refer to settled parties for context in ongoing claims.

  4. Relief from Sanctions: The court employed the Denton v White test in considering relief from sanctions for nondisclosure. The seriousness of a breach, its rationale, and its impact on the just handling of a case are factors in deciding whether to grant relief.

  5. Right to Amend: The court contended with whether amendments should be allowed late in the litigation process. It distinguished between amendments that are material and require comprehensive re-pleading and those that are essentially rebuttals or do not change the case’s nature. The ability to amend a claim is not limitless and is subject to the interests of justice and procedural compliance.


The court allowed the appeals, providing significant rulings on each matter:

  1. Pleadings: Permission was granted to amend the Particulars of Claim, but the request to include a claim for exemplary damages was denied on procedural grounds and as a sanction for nondisclosure.

  2. Facebook Evidence: The court granted relief from sanctions regarding nondisclosure of the Facebook friendship evidence, allowing this to be included in the amended pleadings.

  3. Settlement Agreement: The declaration that the appellant could not seek adverse findings against settled respondents was set aside, affirming that the settlement did not prevent the appellant from litigating issues related to the genuine nature of the accident.

  4. Strikeout: The strikeout of the claim was reverted, taking into account the now-granted amendments to the Particulars of Claim which provided reasonable grounds to bring the claim.


The decision in AXA Insurance UK PLC v Fatjon Kryeziu & Ors underscores the precise obligations of litigants when alleging fraud while emphasizing the importance of transparency and good faith in litigation practices. The interpretation of settlement agreements is context-specific and requires careful analysis to determine the parties’ intentions. The judgment serves as a reminder that procedural compliance is paramount but also balanced against the interests of justice, allowing for case-specific discretions such as relief from sanctions where appropriate.

Related Summaries