0370 270 6000

Sawar v Alam costs Judge Rogers

25 March 2003
The issues

Insurance premium – success fee.

The facts

Judgment in Sawar was given by the Court of Appeal on the 19th September 2001 and the substantive issues related to the obligation on the part of a Claimant to instigate alternative methods of funding. The Claimant was successful in her Appeal and the Claimant’s costs fell to be assessed. A success fee of 100% was sought and a premium of £62,500.00 claimed in respect of the insurance premium for the CFA in relation to the Court of Appeal Hearing.

The decision

1. The Premium – cover provided under the Policy was £125,000.00. The paying party/Defendant had argued that the premium of £62,500.00 was excessive. Correspondence had been put before the Court showing the difficulty of obtaining suitable cover. It was unlikely that the Claimant’s advisors could have obtained an alternative quotation at a lower rate. On this basis, the full amount of the premium was recoverable.

2. Success Fee – reference was made for a decision of Master Hurst, sitting as a Judicial Taxing Officer in the House of Lords in Designer Guild Limited -v- Russell Williams. In that case Master Hurst noted that the chances of success were 50% and that it was therefore appropriate that the success fee in such a case should be 100%. “The thinking behind this is that if a Solicitor were to take two identical cases with a 50% change of success in each, it is likely that one would be lost and the other won”. In Williams, Master Hurst noted that in any case reaching Trial a success fee of £100% was arguably justifiable on the basis that each side presumably believed it had an arguable and winnable case, and that here where the matter was undoubtedly finely balanced, the appropriate success fee was 100%

This also was a finely balanced case and the Solicitors were assuming a substantial risk in entering into a CFA. The success fee of 100% was justified.


Hard cases make bad law. The decision in this case is perhaps not surprising, bearing in mind its high profile and the significance of the issues. The reasoning in its generality is perhaps a little more alarming in its consequences for Defendants.

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.



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.


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.


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