References:  80 Ch D 168
Coram: Bowen LJ
The court set out what was meant by the term ‘wilful default’ when used in a contract for the sale of land. Bowen LJ said: ‘Wilful is a word of familiar use in every branch of law, and although in some branches of the law it may have a special meaning, it generally, as used in courts of law implies nothing blameable, but merely that the person of whose action or default the expression is used, is a free agent, and that what has been done arises from the spontaneous action of his will. It amounts to nothing more than this, that he knew what he was doing, and intends to do what he is doing, and is a free agent.’
This case is cited by:
- Cited – CP (A Child) v Royal London Mutual Insurance Society Ltd CA (Bailii,  EWCA Civ 421,  Lloyd’s Rep IR 85)
A mill had burned down when children had lit a fire. They had not intended the fire to get out of hand as it did. The insurance company refused to pay out on the basis that the policy did not cover damage arising from ‘any wilful malicious or . .
- Cited – Ronson International Ltd v Patrick CA (Times 08-May-06)
The insurance company appealed a finding of liability under a household poliicy where the defendant had set a fire in a factory, but had not intended the eventual disastrous consequences.
Held: To avoid liability under an exclusion clause the . .
- Cited – Porter v Zurich Insurance Company QBD ( NPC 38,  2 All ER (Comm) 658, Bailii,  EWHC 376 (QB))
The claimant insured his house with the defendants. Severely depressed, drunk and delusional, he set fire to it and now claimed after refusal to pay out. He said that he was not acting as a free agent.
Held: A claimant who seeks to recover . .