0370 270 6000

Callery v Gray & Russell v Pal Pack Corrugated Limited

23 July 2001
The issues

Costs – Insurance Premiums – Uplift Appropriate in respect of the CFA

The facts

These two appeals both concerned claim for personal injuries suffered in road traffic accidents. Both were settled quickly without any need to bring Court proceedings. In Callery the Circuit Judge upheld the District Judge’s decision allowing a success fee of 40%. In the other, a Circuit Judge reduced the claim success fee from 30% to 20%.

The decision

1. ATE premiums are in principal recoverable as part of the Claimant’s costs even if the claim is resolved without the need for proceedings. In principal a Claimant does nothing wrong if he enters into a CFA with a success fee and takes ATE insurance when he first consults his solicitor and before the letter of claim and therefore the Defendant’s response.

2. The Court gave some general guidance in respect of modest straightforward claims for compensation. In such cases where a CFA is agreed at the very beginning, 20% should be the maximum uplift that could reasonably be agreed.

3. It might be appropriate for solicitor and client to agree a two stage success fee. It gave as an example a situation where an uplift might be agreed at 100% subject to a maximum of 5% if the claim settles before the pre action protocol period. The 20% figure was a figure put forward tentatively on the basis of very limited data and the Court indicated that it might be appropriate to review that figure once better data was available.

4. A Costs Judge was directed to enquire as to the reasonableness of premiums and would deliver a separate judgment.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up