ATE insurance premiums must relate to the cost exposure they purport to cover
One of the main Jackson reforms to affect civil litigation, which came into force in April 2013, was the abolition of the recoverability of after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums and success fees in conditional fee agreements (CFAs) from the losing (paying) party.
This applies to ATE policies and CFAs entered into after 1 April, save in relation to a few select classes of cases. Where the ATE policy or CFA was entered into before 1 April, losing parties will continue to be liable to pay what can sometimes appear to be unreasonably large premiums and success fees.
The reasonableness of the levels of ATE premiums sought to be recovered by successful claimants is a recurring theme in many payment protection insurance (PPI) mis-selling cases. The decision in one such case, Kelly vs Black Horse Ltd, might provide some ammunition when challenging such premiums…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
Judgment highlights difficulties for companies in developing food products with benefits.
Proposed cap could affect the way contractors cost bids and approach recruitment.