header-logo header-logo

05 July 2018 / Masood Ahmed
Issue: 7800 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

Prospects for a reasonable recovery?

nlj_7800_ahmed

Masood Ahmed provides a useful review of the art of recovering after the event insurance premiums in clinical negligence disputes

Sir Rupert Jackson’s recommendation to abolish the right of claimants to recover after the event insurance (ATE) premiums from the defendant was modified by Parliament in clinical negligence disputes. The recovery of ATE insurance premiums was permitted in order to ensure access to justice for claimants with meritorious claims who would otherwise be unable to fund their claims.

In the leading case of Callery v Gray [2001] EWCA Civ 1117, the Court of Appeal held that, for the purposes of recovering ATE premiums, it was reasonable for a claimant to take out ATE insurance when he first instructed his solicitors. That approach was challenged by the defendant insurers in the recent joined appeals of Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust v Maria McMenemy and Reynolds v Nottinghmashire University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 1941 in which the claimants sought to recover ATE premiums after setting their claims but before

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll