A surety bond provider has fended off a £3.69 million claim - after the claimant refused to hand over key assignment paperwork.
The High Court has thrown out an attempt by US-based Crestline Direct Finance L.P. to secure summary judgment against Insurance Company Euroins AD over a construction performance bond tied to a £37.8 million residential development in Slough.
The bond, issued in March 2020, was designed to guarantee the contractor's performance on a JCT Design & Build contract for two residential blocks. The contractor, Mid Holding Co UK Ltd, went into administration in July 2022 amid a chain of disputed termination notices and allegations of repudiatory breach between the contractor and the employer, Click Herschel Ltd.
Crestline, claiming as assignee under a deed dated 28 May 2024, sought the full bond amount of £3,690,296 from Euroins. When the insurer pushed back, Crestline applied to have Euroins' defence struck out entirely.
It did not go to plan.
Euroins mounted eight separate defences, arguing among other things that the bond had been discharged through repudiation or termination of the building contract, that it had expired before any claim was made, that it had been frustrated, and that the assignment itself was disputed.
The assignment question turned out to be the one that mattered most. A demand letter sent jointly by Crestline and the contractor in March 2024 referenced an earlier assignment — one that predated the May 2024 deed on which the claim was based. Euroins' solicitors asked repeatedly for copies of this earlier document. Crestline's legal team called the request "an attempted side-show" and declined to produce it.
Deputy Judge Simon Lofthouse KC was unimpressed. He called the refusal "fatal to the summary judgment application," noting it was "not a case of hopeful speculation by Euroins that something may turn up." Without sight of the earlier assignment, the court said, "one simply does not know what precisely was assigned on 28 May 2024."
The result: all eight defences survived, and the case now heads to a full trial.
For bond underwriters and claims professionals, the takeaway is direct. Assignment chain documentation is not a box-ticking exercise. When a claimant presents a bond claim as an assignee, insurers are well within their rights to demand full visibility over every link in the chain - and courts will back them up when that documentation is missing.
The survival of defences including discharge, frustration, and bond expiry also sends a wider signal. These are not theoretical arguments. They remain live tools for insurers contesting bond claims in the courts.
Particulars of Claim were dated October 8, 2024. The case was heard on January 15-16, 2026, with judgment handed down on February 26, 2026.
