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?

Abrew v Tesco Stores Limited, Supreme Court Costs Office, 16 May 2003

17 June 2003
The issues

Costs – success fee – ATE Premium – after the event premium – proportionality.

The facts

The Claimant was a lady in her mid 60s who slipped in her local Tesco on dried spaghetti, injuring her shoulder, hip and ankle. The accident occurred on 26th August 2000. On the 6th September 2000 she contacted Solicitors and entered into a CFA. She also took out an insurance policy with Temple of £790.00 plus £39.50 for cover of £100,000.00. The CFA had a success fee of 100%. Thereafter, Claimant’s Solicitors entered into correspondence with the Defendants, who told the Claimant’s Solicitors 12 days outside the Protocol period that liability would not be in issue. Thereafter, a settlement was negotiated in the sum of £3,500.00. Part 8 Proceedings were issued in respect of costs. The Claimant’s Bill was £8,882.00. That matter went to a Costs Officer, who allowed £4,862.47. The Defendant appealed on 3 matters:-

– the level of the insurance premium
– the success fee
– proportionality in respect of the costs of the Detailed Assessment.

The decision

The Insurance Premium

(a) The risk here was not very great but it was sufficiently high to justify a slightly higher premium than the standard policy of £250.00 or £350.00 that was the figure that had appeared in cases that have subsequently found their way into the law reports.

(b) The Claimant’s Solicitor took out too much cover.

(c) The appropriate figure for the premium was £400.00 and the Defendant’s appeal on this head would be allowed.

2. The Success Fee

In every case a success fee had to be looked at on its own facts. The Master had not been helped by a risk assessment that was described by the Master as “quite short”. Although the Costs Officer had concluded that a success fee in the region of 30% to 50% was reasonable in a case of this type, the Master believed that the appropriate success fee was 50% given the state of knowledge and its uncertainty of the outcome of case that the Claimant’s Solicitor was faced with at the time that the CFA was entered into. Defendant’s appeal on this head dismissed.

3. Costs of the Detailed Assessment

The Defendant complained about the sums allowed in respect of the costs of the Detailed Assessment. The Defendants had failed, in the words of Lord Justice Latham in Bernstein -v- Times Newspapers condemning those who sought to make a cottage industry out of satellite litigation. The Defendants had attacked the bill on almost every point and the Master concluded that much of the additional costs, which on the face of it seemed to be disproportionate were caused by the approach of the Defendants to this Assessment. Appeal on that head dismissed.

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