header-logo header-logo

18 November 2011 / David Greene
Issue: 7490 / Categories: Opinion , Legal services
printer mail-detail

A hollow choice?

Does BTE insurance offer freedom of choice, asks David Greene

The increasing tendency to include legal expenses insurance in household policies highlights changes in the relationship between the insurer and the insured’s chosen lawyers. In particular, the insurer’s tendency to steer work towards its own panel has brought into question the ability of the insured to choose their own solicitor, a right guaranteed by the European Directive on Legal Expenses Insurance and the domestic regulations, the Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses) Regulations 1990. One element of that choice is the ability of the insurer to determine the rates at which solicitors instructed by the insured may be paid under the policy. The High Court has now addressed the subject in Brown-Quinn v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd & Others [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm), [2011] All ER (D) 243 (Oct).

There has been, with the development of before-the-event (BTE) insurance (which itself may be knocked by the ban on referral fees), an increasing tension between the insurer and the insured about who should represent the insured in

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll