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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll