0370 270 6000

Ireland v Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust, County Court, 8 April 2003

12 June 2003
The issues

Costs – Insurance Policy – Insurance Premium – whether recoverable.

The facts

The Claimant had a claim for personal injuries against his employer. An admission of liability had been made by the Defendant. The Claimant had subsequently taken out an ATE Policy. The Defendant disputed its liability. The Claimant argued that the Defendant could always withdraw its admission of liability and that there was always a risk as to costs. The Claimant relied on Callery -v- Gray and argued that where liability had been accepted from the outset, it would generally be disproportionate and unreasonable to take out an ATE Policy.

The decision

There were no particular circumstances in this case where liability or causation could be in issue. There was no dispute leading there to be any risk in this case which would require an insurance premium. The Premium would be disallowed.

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.

View

Blogs

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.

View

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.

View

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.

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