We keep up to date with all case law which we believe is significant in regards to the purchase and administration of After the Event Insurance.

Below you will find a library of historic case law referenced by their legal citation and including a brief description and summary.

At the foot of each case description, you will find a link which will take you to the full judgement [External website] should you wish to see this.

Should you have any questions regarding historic cases and their significance in regards to the purchase and administration of After the Event Insurance, you can contact us here.

A. Post Jackson ATE Insurance

• Bendriss v Nicholson Jones Sutton Solicitors (2024)
  An ATE policy is not a “Solicitor Disbursement” and cost challenges must be proportionate
• X – v – H & H Hennes (2022)
  ATE premium is an expense which can be deducted from child’s damages.
• SRA - Disciplinary Decision – David Johnson (2021)
  Failure by solicitor to pay ATE insurers, medical agencies and counsel was dishonest.
• Arag Plc v Jones & Anor (2020)
  The dangers of not insuring all tenants in a Housing disrepair claim.
• Herbert v H H Law Limited (2019)
  Client cannot challenge ATE premium on a Solicitors Act assessment of costs.
• West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust and Demouilpied v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (2019)
  Challenges to Block-rated ATE premiums severely restricted.
• Herbert v HH Law Limited (2018)
  Success fee must still be justified by risk assessment + ATE premium must be included in client bill.
• Mitchell v Gilling-Smith (2017)
  Clinical Negligence ATE premium of £10,000.00 is both reasonable and proportional. (see Nokes v Heart of England (2015) below)
• Percy v Anderson-Young (2017)
  No need to warn defendant before Top-up premium is incurred.
• Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (2017)
  Recovery of a pre-LASPO success fee and After-the-Event (ATE) premium.
• Pollard v University Hospitals (2017)
  Limit of indemnity on ATE policy doesn't determine premium
• Nokes -v- Heart of England Foundation NHS Trust (2015)
  Clinical Negligence ATE premium of £5,680+IPT is recoverable (See Mitchell v Gilling Smith (2017) above)
• SRA - Disciplinary Decision - Steven Eldred (2015)
  Solicitor's failure to pay premiums to ATE Insurer breaches Code of Conduct (see also SRA v David Johnson 2021 above)

B. Conditional Fee Agreements

• Hirachand v Hirachand (2021)
  A CFA success fee was a debt for the purposes of a matrimonial maintenance order
• Candey Ltd v Bosheh & Anor (2021)
  Solicitor acting on CFA is owed no duty of honesty or good faith by its client
• Malone v Birmingham Community NHS Trust (2018) EWCA Civ 1376 (19 June 2018)
  Wrongly named Defendant may not invalidate CFA
• Hanley v JC & A Solicitors Ltd (2017)
  Speculative disclosure (to challenge historic success fee/ATE deductions) refused.
• Forde v Birmingham CC (2009)
  A CFA which is defective under the pre November 2005 regulations can be 'cured' by signing a second retrospective CFA now
• Ashley Cole v News Group Newspapers (2007)
  No Obligation to Disclose CFA unless Detailed Assessment Commenced and Points of Dispute Raise a Genuine Issue
• Cullen v Chopra (2007)
  Metcalfe v Clipston approved (pre-issue notice of funding not mandatory)
• Jones v Wrexham Borough Council (2007)
  Client Care letter terms can inadvertently 'save' an uninforceable CFA
• Nizami & Anor v Butt (2006)
  Where fixed costs apply: valid retainer is not required in order to recover predictable costs, success fee and ATE premium
• Gaynor v Central West London Buses Ltd (2006)
  Work carried out before a CFA is signed is recoverable
• Garbutt & Anor v Edwards & Anor (2005)
  Breach of SRA Code of Conduct (e.g. failure to investigate BTE) does not invalidate CFAs after November 2005
• Metcalfe v Clipston (2004)
  Notice of funding not mandatory before proceedings are issued
• Hollins v Russell (2003)
  Pre November 2005 CFAs: Only material breaches of CFA Regulations will affect validity of a CFA. Duty to disclose CFA

C. Practice & Procedure

• Tabbitt v Clark (2023)
  Court cannot make an order protecting a party against a potential change in the rules.
• The Financial Conduct Authority v Arch and Others (2021)
  Insurers to pay out for Covid-19 related business interruption losses
• Ideal Shopping Direct Ltd & Ors v Visa Europe Ltd & Ors (2020)
  Service of Unsealed amended claim forms did not constitute good service.
• Griffiths V TUI UK Limited (2020)
  Holiday sickness claims - the courts approach to uncontested medical evidence.
• Perry v Raleys Solicitors (2019)
  In claims for "loss of a chance", burden still on Claimant to show that he could have succeeded.
• Network Rail Infrastructure Limited v Williams & Waistell (2018)
  Physical damage not necessary for an actionable private nuisance.
• Su v Clarksons Platou Futures Ltd (2018)
  Meaning of 'knowledge' for purposes of S14A of the Limitation Act 1980
• Ellis v Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust and others (2018)
  Court disapplies S33 Limitation Act even though Defendant told he would not be sued
• Houghton (Stanley) -v- P B Donaghue (Haulage & Plant Hire Ltd & Others) (2017)
  Accepting a Part 36 offer during Trial.
• Lewin -v- Glaxo Operations UK Limited (2016)
  Guideline for Limitation and Date of Knowledge.
• Bhatti v Asghar (2016)
  Is claim validly issued if court fee underpaid?
• Christopher Edwards v London Borough of Sutton (2016)
  No duty on Council to warn of obvious risks.
• Purrunsing v Court & Co (a firm) & Anor (2016)
  Beating a Part 36 offer: Should interest accrued after acceptance be excluded?
• Titmus v General Motors U.K. Ltd - (2016)
  Part 36 offers are payable within 14 days of acceptance- can court extend time?
• Wootton v Surrey County Council (2016)
  Non-disclosure of full facts regarding cause of accident was dishonest conduct and in Contempt of Court
• Aktas v Adepta (2010)
  Issuing a second claim form after the expiry of limitation is not an abuse of process
• Copley v Lawn (2009)
  A Part 36 offer is not necessarily beaten by a higher award at trial
• Ul-Haq v Shah (2009)
  Court will not strike out a Claimant's genuine claim where he is part of a fraud in an associated claim
• Carver v BAA (2008)
  A Part 36 offer is not necessarily beaten by a higher award at trial
• Sowerby v Charlton (2005)
  Defendant does not need the Court's permission/Claimant's agreement to withdraw a pre-action admission of liability

D. Pre Jackson ATE Insurance

• Watson v Johnson (2011)
  Fixed ATE Premium can be used in new Motor Protocol
• Rogers v Luteaim Limited (2009)
  Commission paid on ATE policy need not be disclosed to Defendant
• Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council Court of Appeal (2006)
  Procedure to be followed by a Court when assessing reasonableness of an ATE premium in the context of a small personal injury claim.
• Sharratt v London Central Bus Co - The Accident Group Test Cases (2003)
  Defendant not entitled to breakdown of calculation of ATE premium except in exceptional circumstances
• Tilby v Perfect Pizza (2002)
  Deferred premium is not subject to the Consumer Credit Act

E. Pre Jackson BTE Insurance

• Kilby v Gawith (2008)
  Where fixed costs apply: The usual success fee is recoverable even where the claimant has a pre-existing BTE insurance policy
• Peel v Beasley (2007)
  Union can recover notional insurance premium even if member also had BTE policy
• Hutchings v British Transport Police Authority (2006)
  BTE Insurance - defendant's enquiries of claimant's initial BTE investigations are restricted
• Samonini V London General Transport Services Ltd (2005)
  Pre November 2005 CFAs: Failure to investigate BTE and advising the client to purchase an onerous ATE means all costs are disallowed
• Sarwar v Alam (2001)
  Duty of passenger to use driver's BTE policy is limited

F. Costs

• Oakwood Solicitors Ltd v Menzies (2024)
  Deducting costs from damages is not sufficient “payment” of a bill under the Solicitors Act - the client must agree the amount.
• Belsner v CAM Legal Services (2022)
  No fiduciary duty to client when negotiating the retainer - solicitors could deduct their success fee from recoverable costs.
• Brown v JMW Solicitors (2022)
  A client initiating a costs assessment is not entitled to information about an ATE policy without some evidence of wrongdoing
• R v Barts Health NHS Trust (2022)
  High hourly rate recoverable despite use of QC
• Laser Trust v CFL Finance Ltd (2021)
  When will a Funder be liable for a Defendant's Costs?
• Robinson -v- Liverpool University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust & Dr Chris Mercier (2021)
  Costs awarded against expert after poor evidence at trial
• West (Executor of the Estate of the late Kenneth Morriss) v Burton (2021)
  How should costs be calculated, if the Claimant dies during proceedings?
• SGI Legal LLP v Mrs M Karatysz (2021)
  Lack of Client Consent (CPR 46.9(3) (c) ii ) does not Prevent Deduction of Solicitor Costs from Damages
• J P Finnegan v Spiers (t/a Frank Spiers Licensed Conveyancers) (2018)
  Court has no power to order costs on account after Part 36 acceptance.
• Waring v McDonnell (2018)
  Defence costs of a counterclaiming defendant not covered by QOCS
• Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd (2018)
  When can multiple Defendants recover costs out of damages in QOCS cases? (see Bowman v Nofran (2017) below)
• Bowman v Norfran Aluminium Ltd (1), R M Easedale and Co Limited (2), Norfran Ltd (3) (2017)
  QOCS applies against multiple Defendants. (see Cartwright v Venduct (2018) above)
• BNM v MGN, Court of Appeal (2017)
  Old not new proportionality test applies to recoverability of pre April 2013 additional liabilities
• JC & A Solicitors Ltd v Andeen Iqbal & Anor (2017)
  Recovery of RTA Claims Portal Stage 1 fixed costs
• Parker v Butler (2016)
  QOCS protection covers appeals in PI cases
• Sylvia Henry -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd (2013)
  Exceeding budgeted costs in claims over £25,000
• Dockerill & Healey v Tullett, Macefield v Bakos and Tubridy v Sarwar (2012)
  Only limited costs recoverable in low value infant approval proceedings.
• Germany v Flatman and Weddall v Barchester Healthcare (2011)
  Solicitor who takes responsibility for client's disbs is liable for all adverse costs
• Aurangzeb v Walker (2009)
  Minors - claims below £1,000 will receive only small claims court costs
• Myatt v National Coal Board (2007)
  Order for costs against the claimant's solicitor (i.e. a non-party)
• Crane v Canons Leisure Centre (2007)
  Success fee can be charged on Costs Draftsman's fee
• Dahele v Thomas Bates & Sons Limited (2007)
  Fixed Costs Cases: 100% success fee payable if settlement negotiated at door of Court
• Woollard v Fowler (2006)
  Where fixed costs apply: agency fees included in cost of medical report are recoverable

G. Personal Injury

• Hassam and another (Appellants) v Rabot and another (Respondents) (2024)
  Compensation for whiplash and non-whiplash injuries (“mixed" or "hybrid" claims) must be separately assessed before awarding a combined figure - an approach more favourable to claimants
• Armstead v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Company Limited (2024)
  Burden on negligent defendant to show that loss is too remote, so liable for contractual credit hire losses
• Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust; Polmear v Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust; Purchase v Ahmed (2024)
  No liability to close relatives who did not actually witness clinical negligence
• Griffiths V TUI UK Limited (2021)
  Court can reject Claimant's poor expert report, even in absence of expert evidence from Defendant
• Michael v I E & D Hurford Ltd (2021)
  Claimant not Fundamentally Dishonest Despite a Dishonest Claim
• Pegg v Webb & Anor (2020)
  What constitutes fundamental dishonesty in a personal injury claim?
• Siu Lai Ho V Seyi Adelekun (2020)
  If a claimant fails to beat a Part 36 offer, can a defendant offset its costs against the claimant's costs? Do fixed costs apply if a claim leaves RTA Protocol regime?
• X v Kuoni Travel Ltd (2019)
  Tour operators liable for wide range of acts by their contractor's employees
• Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Limited [2019]
  Claim can only be made against MIB when Defendant driver cannot be identified.
• Wood v TUI Travel PLC (2017)
  Liability of travel companies for gastric illness caused by alleged food poisoning.
• BAE Systems (Operations) Ltd v Marion Konczak (2017)
  Important Court of Appeal guidance on how to assess compensation in cases where a claimant's injury has multiple causes.
• Cameron v Hussain & LV Insurance (2017) EWCA Civ 366
  Permission to issue proceedings against an unknown driver.
• Swift & Ors v Fred Olsen Cruise Lines (2016)
  Failure to manage the risk of norovirus - documentary evidence without witness evidence may be insufficient to prove a safe system was implemented.
• Acierno v Robinson Plc & Anor (Unreported) (2016)
  Discontinuance following non - compliant medical evidence, means QOCS protection lost.
• Dalton and Others -v- British Telecommunications plc (2015)
  NIHL/tinnitus is a disease not an injury, so higher success fee applies.
• Landau v The Big Bus Co. (1) and Zeital (2) (2014)
  QOCS does not apply if it did not apply at first instance.
• Casseldine v The Diocese of LLandaff Board for Social Responsibility (a charity) (unreported) (2013)
  QOCS Protection where previous solicitor instructed pre April 2013
• Philips v Rafiq & MIB (2007)
  MIB liable even though deceased passenger knew driver was uninsured

H. Credit Hire

• Holt v Allianz (2023)
  Credit Hire ruling means that credit hire organisations will need to show evidence of impecuniosity.
• EUI v Charles and others (2018)
  “Impecunious” credit hire Claimants ordered to provide pre-action disclosure
• Clayton v EUI and McBride v UKI EWCA Civ 144 (2017)
  Court of Appeal considers approach in credit hire cases with basic hire rates
• Lagden v O'Connor (2003)
  Impecunious Claimant can recover the credit element of a credit hire
• Dimond v Lovell (2000)
  Claimant can only recover 'spot rate' for credit hire car

I. Housing Disrepair

• Khan v Mehmood (2022)
  10% uplift applies to all civil claims -Simmons v Castle upheld.

J. Contentious Probate

• James v Scudamore (2023)
  What are the time limits for will validity claims?
• Lilleyman v Lilleyman [2012] EWHC 821 (ch)
  Defendant’s refusal to concede that deceased’s will did not make reasonable financial provision for the Claimant meant costs should be reduced by 20%.