A High Court judge has ruled that a February 2014 storm caused damage to the front gable of a Slough property insured by HDI Global Specialty SE, but dismissed claims for damage to the rear gable and subsidence during the policy period. The decision, handed down in Patel v HDI Global Specialty ([2026] EWHC 2602 (KB)), addresses the limits of storm-related claims under a specific home insurance policy.
The case involved Shoba Patel, the owner of a semi-detached house, and a second claimant with a beneficial interest. They sought compensation for storm damage and subsidence under a policy covering the period from October 15, 2013, to October 14, 2014. Deputy Judge Rory Dunlop KC found that the storm had indeed displaced the front gable wall, but rejected claims for damage to the rear gable and subsidence.
The judge accepted evidence from roofers, scaffolders, and the claimants’ structural engineer, Mr. Billingham, that the front gable had tilted forward after the storm. Roof tiles were found in the front garden, and experts agreed the wall’s unrestrained construction made it vulnerable to wind suction. Even though recorded wind speeds might not have caused a properly maintained gable to fail, the judge described the evidence as showing a wall vulnerable to being displaced by storm winds.
HDI had argued that the damage predated the storm, pointing to a photograph showing rusted nails and a gap in the neighboring property’s gable. However, the judge dismissed these as inconclusive, stating the evidence did not reliably establish the timing of the damage.
For the rear gable, the judge rejected the claimants’ argument that a hairline crack—later identified by Mr. Billingham—was storm-related. The experts had previously agreed there was no evidence of storm damage to that wall, and the claimants failed to prove causation. The court also dismissed the subsidence claim, noting that soil tests indicated a low risk of significant shrinkage, and no evidence tied the alleged damage to the policy period.
Read Also: Court denies injunctions in Six Days game dispute
Subsidence claims lack proof of storm damage
The claimants had relied on a sloping lounge floor and a 2019 drainage investigation, which found displaced pipe joints. However, the judge ruled this did not prove a leak existed during the insured period or that any leakage caused the floor’s slope. Additionally, there was no corresponding wall cracking to support a subsidence claim, leaving alternative explanations, such as timber rot, unaddressed.
Cracking in the boundary wall and garage were also insufficient to prove subsidence. HDI’s expert identified a crack in a ceiling tie as a plausible alternative cause, and the claimants’ suggestion of heave following tree removal was not supported by the evidence.
Court rejects late claim hike and procedural delays
The judge also refused the claimants’ application, made at the start of the trial, to increase the pleaded claim from £150,000 to approximately £420,000 and amend the particulars of loss, citing its extreme lateness and lack of adequate explanation. The court was not satisfied that the proceedings should have been automatically struck out over the trial fee. The fee had been paid, and the court’s notice had initially been sent to the wrong recipient. In any event, the judge indicated that relief from sanctions would have been appropriate.
The ruling leaves the claimants with compensation only for the front gable damage. The judge invited further written submissions on the consequential order, with a potential follow-up judgment if needed.
