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

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

Insurance annual review 2019-2020

Welcome to our review of 2019 as we look ahead to what is on the horizon for the insurance sector in 2020.

View

Legal updates

Financial Services – ‘Duty of Care’ Bill: consumer protection or damp squib?

The Financial Services Duty of Care Bill (the “Bill”) was introduced into the House of Lords in October 2019 and had its second reading on 9 January 2020.

View

Legal updates

Noise-induced hearing loss claims – documentation and the expert engineer

Guest writer, Finch Consulting Senior Consultant Teli Chinelis applies his expertise in preparing engineering reports in relation to noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL) claims to explain information that is required from the claimant and information that is required and is advisable to be retained by employers, in order to ensure that claims can be fairly represented.

View

Legal updates

SRA Standards and Regulations November 2019

On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.

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