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?

Sharratt v London Central Bus Co, Senior Costs, 30 July 2003

5 August 2003
The issues

Costs – Premium – Proportionality.

The facts

Chief Master Hurst gave Judgment on the 15th May 2003 when he dealt with premium issues in these test cases. Premiums were allowed as follows:-

2000-£450.00 including IPT

2001-(Lloyds) £480.00 including IPT

2001-(NIG) – £425.00 including IPT

In that Judgment, he indicated that the figure for 2001 Lloyds might alter if an adjustment had to be made for swing premium. When TAG required further capacity they entered into a separate arrangement with NIG. The premium for both types of policy was £950.00 plus IPT. In the Lloyds cases, the premium paid to Underwriters and brokerage amounted to £328.50. £621.50 was paid to TAG as “Underwriter’s contribution to costs” and provision for “swing premium” which depended upon the level of losses incurred and which required TAG to pay additional premium by way of rebate of the Underwriter’s contribution to costs. The swing was between 80% and 125% of losses but with a cap of £550.00 per case. The remaining issues were – firstly what was the amount of the premium, which covered qualifying Section 29 Benefits, and secondly, what effect did the reasonableness and proportionality tests have on that figure?

The decision

1. Taking as a starting point the figure of £358.00 arrived at from the capped premium of £550.00 and adding to it figures for brokerage, cover holder’s commission and acquisition commission. The figure arrived at was £608.00.

2. It might be in the future that evidence would be presented showing that the premiums charged by NIG and others were insufficient to enable those companies viably to offer ATE insurance.

However, it was necessary for the matter to be approached on the basis of the Solicitors knowledge at the time the agreements were entered into.

3. The premiums so far approved by the Court of Appeal ranged from £357.50 (Callery -v- Gray) to £621.30 (Claims Direct). In the case of Claims Direct, the agreements provided for both sides costs and therefore provided wider benefits than those provided under the TAG scheme.

A reasonable figure therefore for 2001 Lloyds including Swing Premium and IPT was £525.00.

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