In the case of Fire Insurance Association (Limited) v. Wickham, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom was asked to decide whether a fire insurance policy was validly issued to the defendant, Wickham. The plaintiff, Fire Insurance Association (Limited), had issued the policy to Wickham, but Wickham had failed to pay the premiums due under the policy. The court held that the policy was validly issued and that Wickham was liable for the premiums due. The court found that Wickham had accepted the policy and had not repudiated it. The court also found that Wickham had not taken any steps to avoid the policy, such as notifying the insurer of any changes in his circumstances. The court also found that Wickham had not taken any steps to avoid the policy, such as notifying the insurer of any changes in his circumstances. The court held that Wickham was liable for the premiums due under the policy and that the insurer was entitled to recover the premiums from Wickham. The court also held that Wickham was not entitled to any compensation for any losses he may have suffered as a result of the policy. The court's decision in this case established that a fire insurance policy is validly issued when the insured has accepted the policy and has not taken any steps to avoid it. The court also established that the insurer is entitled to recover the premiums due under the policy from the insured.

In the dissenting opinion of Fire Insurance Association (Limited) v. Wickham, Justice Strong argued that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be overturned. He believed that a contract between two parties should not be voided simply because one party failed to comply with its terms; instead, he argued for an equitable remedy which would allow both parties to benefit from their agreement while still protecting each other’s interests. Specifically, he proposed that if one party fails to perform under a contract then they must pay damages equal to what they would have received had they performed as promised. This solution allows both sides of the dispute to receive some form of compensation without completely voiding the original agreement or forcing either side into an unfair situation due to another’s breach in performance.