A sweeping High Court judgment has drawn new lines for insurers facing professional indemnity claims over failed tax mitigation schemes, after 176 investors took on White & Co and Allianz.
In a case that has sent ripples through the insurance and financial advisory sectors, the High Court in Manchester delivered a decision on September 22, 2025, that will shape how insurers respond to mass claims tied to complex investment advice. The dispute, Ahmed v White & Company (UK) Limited & Allianz Global Corporate & Specialty SE, involved 176 claimants who brought proceedings against White & Co, a firm of chartered accountants, and its professional indemnity insurer, Allianz, over losses from a range of high-risk, tax-driven investments.
The claimants, identified in the court schedule, alleged that White & Co gave negligent advice on a series of investment vehicles. These included Enterprise Investment Schemes (EIS), Seed EIS, Super EIS, Films Rights Business (FRB), shares in DJI Holdings plc, Ober Private Clients Ltd, and corporate bonds. Many of these investments were promoted for their tax relief benefits, but ultimately failed, leaving investors with substantial losses. The claimants asserted that White & Co’s advice was negligent and/or that secret commissions were paid.
White & Co, a practice owned by Mr Benjamin White and Ms Emma Abbott, entered administration on March 27, 2019, and was liquidated on February 17, 2020. Allianz, which had provided professional indemnity coverage for White & Co from November 26, 2016, to December 27, 2017, became the focal point for investors seeking compensation.
At the heart of the legal battle were the terms and limits of the insurance policy. The Allianz policy required that any “circumstance…reasonably expected to give rise to a Claim” be notified promptly. More crucially, the policy contained a “Tax Mitigation Endorsement,” capping the insurer’s liability at £2 million for all claims relating to “Tax Mitigation Schemes.” These were defined in the policy as loans, investments or trusts which are pre-planned artificial transactions designed to achieve a specific tax outcome, including EIS and similar schemes.
The court’s analysis focused on whether White & Co’s notifications to Allianz were sufficient to trigger coverage for all the claims, whether the claims should be aggregated under the policy’s “related claims” provision, and the effect of the Tax Mitigation Endorsement. The aggregation clause stated that all related claims arising from the same facts or circumstances would be treated as a single claim for the purpose of the policy’s financial limit.
The judgment is notable for its detailed parsing of insurance policy language. The court examined the requirements for notification, the scope of the aggregation clause, and the breadth of the Tax Mitigation Endorsement. The decision clarified that, under such policy wordings, insurers like Allianz may be able to aggregate a large number of similar claims into a single claim, thereby limiting their total exposure to the policy’s aggregate cap.
For the insurance industry, the ruling provides a blueprint for handling future claims involving professional advice on tax-driven investments. It underscores the importance of clear policy drafting and robust notification procedures, especially as mass claims and complex financial products become more common.
The Ahmed v White & Co decision is now a touchstone for insurers, brokers, and financial professionals navigating the risks of professional indemnity coverage in a landscape where tax mitigation schemes and investment advice can lead to high-stakes litigation.
