Gatwick Investment Ltd v Liberty Mutual - Business Interruption Insurance and CJRS Deduction
Summary
The UK Supreme Court (Lord Reed, Lord Briggs, Lord Hamblen, Lord Leggatt, Lord Burrows) ruled on 22 April 2026 that Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments received by employers must be taken into account (credited) when calculating amounts payable under 'savings clauses' in business interruption insurance policies. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, which had upheld the position that CJRS payments should not be deducted. The case concerned whether CJRS wage-reimbursement payments fall within policy provisions that reduce payouts when the policyholder's charges or expenses cease or reduce as a consequence of damage. Hotels and racecourse operators who claimed business interruption losses after Covid-19 and received CJRS funds will now face adjusted insurance settlements.
Insurers processing business interruption claims arising from the Covid-19 pandemic that include CJRS payments must now apply the Supreme Court's finding that such payments fall within savings clauses reducing sums payable. Policyholders who have received (or are receiving) CJRS reimbursements for wage costs that ceased during Covid-19-related interruptions should anticipate corresponding reductions in their business interruption settlements under affected policy wording. Parties with pending or unresolved claims under similar policy provisions should review the judgment for its impact on their recoverable amounts.
About this source
GovPing monitors UK Supreme Court Decisions for new courts & legal regulatory changes. Every update since tracking began is archived, classified, and available as free RSS or email alerts — 3 changes logged to date.
What changed
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom reversed the decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal in Gatwick Investment Ltd v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE [2026] UKSC 14, holding that CJRS payments made to employers constitute 'charges or expenses' of the policyholder within the meaning of the savings clauses in business interruption policies. These clauses provide for a deduction from sums payable by insurers when any of the policyholder's charges or expenses cease or reduce as a consequence of Damage. Because CJRS payments reimburse employers for wage expenditure that ceased when employees were furloughed, the Court held that such payments must be taken into account when assessing the insurer's liability.
The practical effect is that policyholders (including hotel and racecourse operators) who successfully claimed business interruption losses during the Covid-19 pandemic and received CJRS funds will have those government payments deducted from their insurance settlements. Insurers must apply this ruling when processing current and future business interruption claims involving CJRS payments. This Supreme Court decision represents the final resolution of the specific legal question on which the lower courts had disagreed.
Hearing
- Date
- 2026-02-11
- Location
- Virtual
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
•
COMMERCIAL
Gatwick Investment Ltd and others (Appellants) v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE (Respondent)
Judgment given
Contents
-
-
-
-
Case summary
Case ID
UKSC/2025/0067
Parties
Appellant(s)
(1) Gatwick Investment Ltd (2) Millcroft Management Ltd (3) Sal Hotels Ltd (4) Serena Investments Ltd (5) Southampton Row Hotel LLP (6) London Victoria Hotel No 2 Ltd
Respondent(s)
Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE
Issue
Do 'furlough' payments paid by the UK Government under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (“CJRS”) to policyholders fall to be deducted from the amounts otherwise payable by insurers in claims for "business interruption" losses suffered because of the Covid-19 pandemic?
Facts
These appeals concern business interruption insurance claims arising out of the Covid-19 pandemic. Certain insurance policies provide explicit cover for losses resulting from interruption with the policyholder's business at their premises which arise in consequence of Government actions responding to certain insured perils. Covid-19 may be such an insured peril.
The policies in these appeals contain "savings" clauses which provide for a deduction from the amount payable by the insurers if “any of the charges or expenses” of the policyholder “cease or reduce in consequence of the Damage” (or words to similar effect). These appeals concern the correct construction of such clauses.
As part of the Government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, it established the CJRS. Under this scheme, employers who had “furloughed” their employees by instructing them to cease work could claim payments reimbursing the employers for their expenditure on the employees’ wages.
Each of the appellants is a company which was insured under an insurance policy with the respondent insurers. The first appellants are six companies, each of which owns or operates a separate hotel in England. The second appellants are various insured companies within the Arena Racing group, who operate racecourses and greyhound racing tracks, among other things, in England and Wales. Each appellant successfully claimed payments under the CJRS after furloughing their employees by instructing them to cease work.
The appellants claimed business interruption losses sustained during the Covid-19 pandemic under their insurance policies with the respondents. The respondents accept that they are in principle liable in accordance with the policies for such losses but argue that the payments received by the appellants under the CJRS should be deducted from the sum payable under the savings clauses in the insurance policies.
In the High Court, Jacobs J found that credit should be given for the CJRS payments. The Court of Appeal agreed with that conclusion. The Appellants now appeal to the Supreme Court.
Date of issue
23 April 2025
Case origin
PTA
Written arguments
Gatwick Investment Limited and others (Appellants) (Appellant) PDF | 708.02 KB
13 March 2026 PDF Respondent's written case
Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE (Respondent) (Respondent) PDF | 461.52 KB
13 March 2026
Statements of Facts and Issues
PDF Statement of Facts and Issues
Gatwick Investment Limited and others (Appellants) v Liberty Mutual Insurance Europe SE (Respondent) (Appellant) PDF | 423.69 KB
13 March 2026
Linked cases
Judgment details
Judgment date
22 April 2026
Neutral citation
[2026] UKSC 14
Judgment links
PDF | 432.20 KB
22 April 2026 PDF Press summary (PDF)
PDF | 226.08 KB
22 April 2026 Judgment (HTML version) HTML
Press summary (HTML version) HTML
Judgment on The National Archives (HTML version) HTML
Press summary on The National Archives (HTML Version) HTML
Judgment on BAILII (HTML version) HTML
Judgment summary
22 April 2026
Appeal
Justices
Hearing dates
Full hearing
Start date
11 February 2026
End date
12 February 2026
Watch hearings
11 February 2026 - Morning session
11 February 2026 - Afternoon session
12 February 2026 - Morning session
All videos on this page are recorded and transmitted in line with the Court's terms of use. These can be found here.
Please Note: Every effort is being made to provide a satisfactory streaming service of the Supreme Court judgments and hearings. However, these services may be subject to technical issues or delay, in which case we will attempt to resolve them as soon as possible.
Permission to Appeal
Justices
Permission to Appeal decision date
1 July 2025
Permission to Appeal decision
Granted
Previous proceedings
Change log
Last updated 14 August 2025
Sign up for updates about this case
Sign up to receive email alerts when this case is updated.
Sign up I agree to the Court processing my information in line with its privacy policy.
Named provisions
Parties
Related changes
Get daily alerts for UK Supreme Court Decisions
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from UKSC.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when UK Supreme Court Decisions publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.