A solicitor should not be subject to a non-party costs order for failing to obtain ATE insurance
The court’s jurisdiction to make a non-party costs order (NCPO) against a solicitor who had acted under a conditional fee agreement (CFA) without the benefit of after-the-event (ATE) insurance has been the subject of two Court of Appeal decisions in quick succession. The recent judgment in Heron and TNT (UK) Ltd v MTG will come as some relief to many solicitors who have not secured an ATE policy on their client’s behalf.
number of applications have found their way before the courts where the successful defendant to litigation has sought to obtain a non party costs order against the solicitor who acted for the unsuccessful claimant under a CFA. Where the claimant’s solicitors have failed to obtain ATE insurance to meet the defendant’s costs and where the losing claimant does not have the funds to do so, defendants have claimed that the claimant’s solicitors effectively “funded” or “controlled” the litigation. They have argued that this entitles the court to exercise its discretion under section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 to make a NCPO in the defendant’s favour against the responsible solicitor…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
There is an implied term allowing a paying responding party under an adjudication award six years from the date of payment to challenge the adjudicator’s decision.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why