It was held that the Trust had no proper standing to seek declarations (i) and (iii) – (vii). The Trust was a third party and was not entitled to a declaration as to the meaning or performance of a contract to which it is not a party, in circumstances, where the parties to that contract are not in dispute. Neither was it an exceptional circumstances and this was consistent with the ratio in Meadows Indemnity Co Ltd v Insurance Corp of Ireland Plc  2 Lloyd’s Rep.298, although the law has moved on since that case, this remains the general position. The grant of declaratory relief was held as discretionary and the cases in which it had been recognised that the declarations may be granted in a wider category of case than suggested by Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers  AC 435 was far removed from the present.
There was no relevant dispute between the contracting parties themselves, the Trust had interests which were directly opposed to one or more of the contracting parties, the insurance arrangements cannot be prayed in aid by non- parties, that the availability of insurance to a claimant in a tort action has no effect on the liability of the defendant to the claimant. Also the power of attorney did not give the Trust a right to seek declaratory relief.
It was accepted that there was a contractual obligation on the reinsurers to exercise their authority, discretion and control in a businesslike manner. Whether the reinsurers required the Trust to pursue claims in the US tort system would be considered un-businesslike was to be determined. It did not necessarily follow that the reinsurers were in breach of their obligations by refusing to accept the process of claims handling and settlement purposes used by the Trust. What may be considered ‘best practice’ was not directly relevant in the context. The judge stated that there was no monopoly on what may be 'businesslike'.
The Trust was granted declarations in part, subject to some modifications to reflect the conclusions reached by the judge.
This is an interesting case that seeks to address the complexities involving insurance contracts and third party right to information.