IT took her almost eight years but the widow of a customer who died after being assaulted by a pub bouncer has finally won her case for an insurance payout.

Britain’s highest court, the UK ­Supreme Court, yesterday unanimously found in favour of Fiona Grant, widow of Craig Grant who died as the result of being put in a choke hold by door steward Jonas Marcius after he was escorted from the Tonik Bar, Langstane Place, ­Aberdeen, on August 9 2013.

Tried for murder in the High Court, the jury did not accept that Marcius had asphyxiated Grant or caused his death, only convicting him of ­assault. The sentencing judge accepted that Marcius’s actions were badly executed, not badly motived, imposing a non-custodial sentence.

Grant originally raised a compensation claim against Marcius, his former employers Prospect Security Ltd – now in liquidation – the then operators of the bar, Blu Inns Ltd. and the International Insurance Company of Hanover, which provided public liability insurance to the security firm but who claimed their policy excluded cover for a deliberate or wilful act.

The policy included a Clause 14 exclusion which provided that “liability arising out of deliberate acts” of an employee was excluded from the policy’s coverage.

On appeal, the Court of Session found that the insurers were liable to pay a sum to Grant. In February 2019, Lord Drummond Young wrote in the court’s judgement: “The ­duties of door stewards will inevitably involve the use of some force. ­Consequently the intention to use force against a customer cannot be a bar to liability; otherwise the policy would be deprived of a major part of its obvious commercial purpose.”

The UK Supreme Court yesterday backed that view, the judgement stating: “There is a clear risk that door stewards will use a degree of force in carrying out their duties. As the Court of Session recognised, the ­required cover for public liability was that which would deal with such ­incidents at the door of bars. Otherwise, the policy would be stripped of much of its content.

“Against that background, the critical issue dividing the parties is what is meant by “deliberate acts”. The insurer’s case is that it means acts which are intended to cause injury, or acts which are carried out recklessly as to whether they will cause injury. Grant’s case is that it means acts which are intended to cause the ­specific injury which results in, in this case death or at least serious ­injury, but that on any view it does not include reckless acts.”

Dismissing the appeal, the judgement added: “There was no finding by the courts below of intention to injure, or even recklessness. The ­conviction for assault does not ­establish any intention beyond an ­intention to perform the act of ­assault, namely the neck hold.”