This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/12/uk-riots-insurers-win-legal-battle-police

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
UK riots: insurers win legal battle for police costs over Enfield warehouse UK riots: insurers win legal battle for police costs over Enfield warehouse
(6 days later)
Insurers have won a high court battle with police bosses and the London mayor, Boris Johnson, after a warehouse was destroyed and looted during the summer riots of 2011.Insurers have won a high court battle with police bosses and the London mayor, Boris Johnson, after a warehouse was destroyed and looted during the summer riots of 2011.
A judge ruled that insurers were claiming for losses that arose out of damage caused by "persons riotously and tumultuously assembled".A judge ruled that insurers were claiming for losses that arose out of damage caused by "persons riotously and tumultuously assembled".
Legislation governing police says compensation for damage by riot should be paid out of police funds.Legislation governing police says compensation for damage by riot should be paid out of police funds.
Insurers claimed that damage caused to a Sony warehouse in Enfield, north London, in August 2011 fell into that category.Insurers claimed that damage caused to a Sony warehouse in Enfield, north London, in August 2011 fell into that category.
Lawyers representing Johnson – whose office funds the Metropolitan police – disagreed, arguing that the incident "did not constitute a riotous and tumultuous assembly".Lawyers representing Johnson – whose office funds the Metropolitan police – disagreed, arguing that the incident "did not constitute a riotous and tumultuous assembly".
Mr Justice Flaux ruled in favour of insurers after analysing evidence at a high court hearing in London in July.Mr Justice Flaux ruled in favour of insurers after analysing evidence at a high court hearing in London in July.
The judge said – in a written ruling – that the Sony distribution warehouse had been destroyed and looted shortly before midnight on 8 August 2011 during "the widespread civil disorder and rioting which took place in London and elsewhere" after a man was shot and killed by police in Tottenham, north London.The judge said – in a written ruling – that the Sony distribution warehouse had been destroyed and looted shortly before midnight on 8 August 2011 during "the widespread civil disorder and rioting which took place in London and elsewhere" after a man was shot and killed by police in Tottenham, north London.
He said the attack on the warehouse was "perpetrated by a group of some 25 youths" who earlier congregated on a nearby housing estate.He said the attack on the warehouse was "perpetrated by a group of some 25 youths" who earlier congregated on a nearby housing estate.
"The youths smashed into the warehouse using a variety of makeshift weapons and ran through the building looting it of a certain amount of the stock held there," said Flaux."The youths smashed into the warehouse using a variety of makeshift weapons and ran through the building looting it of a certain amount of the stock held there," said Flaux.
"Two of them then threw petrol bombs into the stacking within the warehouse and they all made their escape, some carrying what had been looted, and left the warehouse to burn."Two of them then threw petrol bombs into the stacking within the warehouse and they all made their escape, some carrying what had been looted, and left the warehouse to burn.
"The whole incident took no more than just over three minutes. However, the fire took hold and burned for some 10 days, with the total destruction of the plant, equipment and stock.""The whole incident took no more than just over three minutes. However, the fire took hold and burned for some 10 days, with the total destruction of the plant, equipment and stock."
The judge said insurers claimed that losses added up to more than £60m and wanted compensation from the mayor's office under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.The judge said insurers claimed that losses added up to more than £60m and wanted compensation from the mayor's office under the Riot (Damages) Act 1886.
He said the act – amended by further legislation in 1964 and 1996 – had a section headed "compensation to persons for damage by riot" which read: "Where a house, shop, or building in a police area has been injured or destroyed, or the property therein has been injured, stolen, or destroyed, by any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, such compensation as hereinafter mentioned shall be paid out of the police fund of the area".He said the act – amended by further legislation in 1964 and 1996 – had a section headed "compensation to persons for damage by riot" which read: "Where a house, shop, or building in a police area has been injured or destroyed, or the property therein has been injured, stolen, or destroyed, by any persons riotously and tumultuously assembled together, such compensation as hereinafter mentioned shall be paid out of the police fund of the area".
Flaux said he had been asked to decide two issues, whether losses claimed arose out of damage cause by "persons riotously and tumultuously assembled" within the meaning of the legislation and whether "consequential losses", including loss of profit or rent were "in principle recoverable".Flaux said he had been asked to decide two issues, whether losses claimed arose out of damage cause by "persons riotously and tumultuously assembled" within the meaning of the legislation and whether "consequential losses", including loss of profit or rent were "in principle recoverable".
The judge ruled that losses claimed did "arise out of the injury to and destruction of the warehouse and injury to, theft of or destruction of property within the warehouse, by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled" within the meaning of the 1886 act.The judge ruled that losses claimed did "arise out of the injury to and destruction of the warehouse and injury to, theft of or destruction of property within the warehouse, by persons riotously and tumultuously assembled" within the meaning of the 1886 act.
But he decided that consequential losses were not in principle recoverable under the legislation.But he decided that consequential losses were not in principle recoverable under the legislation.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning. Enter your email address to subscribe.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox every weekday.