header-logo header-logo

Prospects for a reasonable recovery?

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
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
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll