Please sign in with your existing account details.
Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.
Privacy statement - Terms and conditions
Forgotten your password?
You have exceeded the maximum number of login attempts for this email address and your account has been locked. An email has been sent to member of Browne Jacobson's web team and some one will be contacting you over the next two working days with details of how to change your password.
Are you sure you want to remove this item from you pinned content?
ATE Premium – champerty – reasonableness – premium size – simple road traffic accident.
The Claimant had an RTA on 1st December 1997. The Claimant accepted £13,000.00 paid into Court on 3rd January 2002. When her costs were assessed, the Defendant objected to paying the ATE premium of £2,600.00 or nearly 20% of the damages recovered. The Claimant had entered into a contract of insurance on the 27th March 2001. The Insurer provided indemnity to a limit of £10,000.00. The premium was stated as being 20% of damages awarded.
The Agreement was not champertous. The essence of champerty lay as Lord Mustill had stated in Giles -v- Thompson in the temptation on the part of a party funding litigation to exaggerate the claim or suppress evidence. Here, in reality, there was no such danger as the Insurer was not in a position to interfere with the litigation.
2. The sum of £2,600.00 was excessive for an ATE Premium in what was a simple road traffic case. It was more than 25% of the limit of indemnity. There had been no submissions or evidence as to the availability of other suitable ATE policies. The Defendants however had conceded that the appropriate premium should now be no more than £350.00. That sum would be allowed plus IPT making a total of £367.50.
Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.
View
On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.
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).
The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.
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.
Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.
Sign up