0370 270 6000

Loader v Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust, Bristol County Court, 6 June 2003

12 June 2003
The issues

Costs – Proportionality – CCFA – Collective Conditional Fee Agreement – Success Fee – Insurance Premium – ATE Premium – Charging Rates.

The facts

Claimant claimed damages against her employer for personal injuries. The letter of claim was sent on 22nd November 2000. Part 36 Offers were made by both sides and liability was admitted on behalf of the Defendant on the 23rd May 2001.

There were no issues of causation or contributory negligence. The case settled for £6,300.00, without the need of proceedings being issued. It was funded by a CCFA, supported by an Insurance Premium entered into only on the 6th March 2002.

The ATE Premium was £840.00. A success fee of 35% was claimed. The total Bill of Costs was £5,447.91. The matter came to Detailed Assessment, following the issue of costs only proceedings.

The decision

1. The Detailed Assessment would be adjourned, the Claimant being ordered to disclose to the Defendant the CCFA within 14 days.

2. The Bill of Costs was not proportionate. Liability had been admitted at an earlier stage. There were no medical complications. Proceedings had never been issued.

3. Although Grade A Bristol charging rates were claimed, the applicable rates were those in the Bournemouth County Court, bearing in mind that the Claimant and the Defendant were both resident in that area and that the accident occurred in Bournemouth.

4. It was reasonable to incur an ATE Premium because there had been a minor risk to the Claimant following the making of Part 36 Offers by both Defendant and Claimant. However, the premium was too high and would be allowed at £420.00.

5. The success fee was too high and would be reduced to 15%. Costs and disbursements would be allowed at £3,253.38, subject to disclosure of the CCFA, and a ruling as to its enforceability. A payment of £3,500.00 had been made by the Defendant on account of costs and accordingly the Claimant was ordered to pay Defendant’s costs of Detailed Assessment in the sum of £1,123.60.


For further information please contact mariemacfarlane@vpinsurance.net or John Allen at lcjdallen943@aol.com.

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