$100,743,642 is a floor — not a ceiling
Every figure in this damages claim is calculated on Aegon's own declared data because Aegon refuses to produce actual bordereaux. When actual data is produced, all figures will be recalculated — and will be higher.
The figures on this page derive from one unanswered question: what reinsurance premiums did the Defendants actually receive? The Defendants have admitted the data exists and was not provided to the commission calculation function. No explanation has been provided. These figures are calculated on Aegon’s own declared data — they are a floor. On production of actual bordereaux, all figures will be recalculated upward.
The core position
The floor characterisation refers to the data source — Aegon's own declared (and understated) figures rather than actual bordereaux. The refusal to produce actual bordereaux is the sole reason a floor methodology is required. If Aegon had complied with its disclosure obligations, the figures would be calculated on actual data and would be higher. The three corrections applied within that data are contractually required — they are not discretionary modelling choices.
The proof chain
Aegon held the actual premium data throughout
Actual monthly GWP bordereaux for Korea (LG Insurance), Japan (Mitsui Sumitomo, Aioi), and Australia (St George, Lumley, CBA, Hallmark) have been held by Aegon since at least 1 July 2005, confirmed by Aegon's own payment records and the Lumley Ingenium system.
Aegon admits it has the data
On 2 August 2024 (D3.70), Aegon made a written admission that actual premiums "were available but not shared with the commission payment team." This was not extracted under compulsion. Aegon knew it had the data — and knew it was not using it.
Aegon was formally required to produce it — and refused
Written requests were made from 2021. A formal Clause 6.7 invocation was made in 2024, imposing a contractual obligation to produce the data. Aegon has formally refused. The SOC seeks a production order requiring delivery of all actual bordereaux within 28 days of judgment.
Declared figures are therefore the only available data source
The methodology uses Aegon's own declared GWP figures because Aegon refuses to produce actuals. The three corrections are contractually required. The result is the minimum underpayment on Aegon's own data. It is a floor by definition.
The D3.70 admission — 2 August 2024
The most significant single document in the damages case. On 2 August 2024 an Aegon representative made a written admission that eliminates Aegon's only available defence to the floor characterisation.
Eight constraints suppressing the floor below true entitlement
Every constraint is confirmed and intentional. Each suppresses the stated quantum below true entitlement. Removal of any one on production of actual data increases the claim.
Aegon's declared GWP only
All GWP figures are Aegon's own declared estimates. Actual bordereaux will be higher.
No GWP growth factors
Twenty years of portfolio growth (2005–2025) entirely excluded. No inflation or CPI adjustment.
No new product commissions
New insurance products introduced post-2005 excluded entirely, even where covered by the same reinsurance agreements.
Korea Component B excluded
Differential between declared and actual Korea GWP entirely excluded — reserved pending production order.
Simple interest only
Interest on s.100 simple basis. Equitable compound interest reserved and would produce a substantially higher figure over 20 years.
Two-thirds run-off factor (CA)
Conservative two-thirds factor applied to CA base throughout. Actual run-off may be lower, increasing CA principal.
CC-13 pivot date (July 2005)
Claim commences 1 July 2005. Any pre-July 2005 underpayments excluded consistent with the pleaded start date.
Post-demand interest excluded
Interest from 25 November 2025 to judgment not included in the stated floor. It continues to accrue daily.
The legal framework
Jones v Dunkel
A party who fails, without explanation, to call evidence it might be expected to produce opens itself to an inference that the evidence would not have assisted it. Aegon has withheld actual premium records since 2021 despite formal requests and the Clause 6.7 invocation. The available inference is that the actual records confirm — and will increase — the floor quantum when produced.
Chaplin v Hicks
A defendant cannot create the conditions that make precise calculation impossible and then rely on that imprecision to defeat or reduce a damages claim. Aegon withheld the actual premium data that would resolve quantum precisely. That uncertainty is Aegon's creation. The conservative floor calculation is the court-accepted substitute — and any revision on production of actuals can only be upward.
What Aegon holds and refuses to produce
| Territory | Data held by Aegon | Confirmation | Impact if produced |
|---|---|---|---|
| Korea | Actual monthly GWP bordereaux from LG Insurance from 1 July 2005 | CC-15 confirms access throughout | Korea Component B — uplift beyond ~$16,504,603 |
| Japan | Actual monthly GWP from Mitsui Sumitomo and Aioi from 1 July 2005 | Aegon payment records confirm internal calculations | Japan EA and CA principal uplift |
| St George / Lumley | Actual monthly GWP from 1 July 2005 | Australian regulatory filings; Ingenium data | St George and Lumley EA and CA uplift |
| CBA | Actual monthly CBA GWP from 1 July 2005 | CBA-TIMAP arrangement records | CBA EA and CA uplift beyond ~$3,003,991 |
| Hallmark | Actual monthly GWP for Hallmark AD and Term products | ADMS table confirms CA scope | Hallmark CA uplift for AD (82.5%) and Term (76.5%) |
- Part 1 — Why figures are floors, not ceilingsThe eight conservative constraints; distinction between floor (data source) and correction (contractually required)
- Part 2 — What Aegon holds and refuses to produceTerritory-by-territory table of withheld data; CC-15 and D3.70 as confirmation
- Part 3 — Production order sought04-01 SOC Part S, Order 5 — full text of the relief sought; 28-day production timeline
- Part 4 — What recalculation will addTerritory-by-territory analysis of uplift expected on actual bordereaux
- Part 5 — Jones v Dunkel adverse inferenceDoctrine applied to Aegon's refusal; written requests from 2021; Clause 6.7 invocation
- Part 6 — Chaplin v Hicks: defendant-created uncertaintyFull legal analysis; conservative floor as the court-accepted substitute for withheld actuals
- Part 7 — Forensic accountantExpert evidence required to verify recalculation on actual bordereaux
- Part 1 — The one questionWhy the case resolves to a single factual question: how much premium did Aegon actually receive?
- Part 6 — Floor figures, methodology and production ordersPlain-language introduction to the floor concept; why $100,743,642 understates the true entitlement
- Part 1 — The claim in summaryWhy the entitlement is effectively determined rather than merely probable under the juridical probability framework
- Part 2 — Pathway exhaustion analysisEvery legally permissible pathway to a different outcome identified, tested, and defeated
- Part 3 — The floor as legal minimumWhy $100,743,642 represents the minimum legally coherent outcome — not one possible outcome among many