0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Wingrove v North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol County Court, 7 June 2002

7 June 2002
The issues

Costs – Proportionality – Insurance premium

The facts

This was a case in which liability had been settled. There had been a delay in the treatment of the Claimant. A Part 36 Offer of £2,000.00 was accepted by the Claimant. The matter went to Detailed Assessment of Claimant’s costs.

An hourly rate of £150.00 was claimed. Base profit costs were put at £2,141.00. A success fee of 100% was claimed. The Defendants objected to base costs, insurance premium, which was claimed at £3,250.00, and success fee on the grounds that all were disproportionate to the value of the claim. The Defendants also argued that the charging rate was too high on the grounds that this case, though technically a clinical negligence claim, was not one that required a Clinical Negligence Specialist.

The decision

1. The claim did not require a clinical negligence specialist. The hourly rate would be reduced from £150 to £125.

2. The insurance premium would be reduced to £1,995. Further objections were rejected by the Judge who noted firstly an absence of judicial knowledge with regard to the subject and, secondly, the absence of sufficient contrary evidence regarding other comparable insurance premiums/levels of cover.

3. The success fee was too high. 20% was reasonable and would be allowed.

4. Base profit costs were disproportionate. They would be allowed at £1,250.00.

Comments

We were encouraged by the result in this case with regard to the Judge’s robust and sensible decision with regard to proportionality and indeed the hourly rate. We were disappointed that the premium was allowed at the figure that it was allowed at but the case points out the importance of insurers collating with the assistance of their Solicitors, a bank of “market” alternatives. There is of course an interesting “double-bind” here in that one important element in the market might be the sums which Judges allow premiums at!

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

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