header-logo header-logo

Insurance premium tax attack

25 March 2016
Issue: 7692 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The Bar Council has raised concerns about rises to the insurance premium tax, announced in the Budget.

The Treasury increased the standard rate of insurance premium tax to 10%, pushing up the cost of before- and after-the-event legal expenses insurance. The rise follows an increase from 6% to 9.5% in November 2015.

Chantal-Aimée Doerries QC, chairman of the Bar, brands the increase “a direct attack on the responsible consumer’s wallet”.

“This is not a tax on the insurers; it is a tax that the policy holder has to pay directly if they want to protect themselves in a claim. This tax increase should not be taken in isolation. With the government increasing the fees people have to pay to use our courts for civil claims, anyone would think they are actively pricing hardworking families and individuals up and down the country out of the justice system.”

Issue: 7692 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll