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

Forgotten your password?

Piria v Ayling

25 February 2003
The issues

ATE Premium – champerty – reasonableness – premium size – simple road traffic accident.

The facts

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 decision

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.

Focus on...

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.


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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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