header-logo header-logo

04 June 2015
Issue: 7655 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Welcome ruling on ATE

ATE premium for clinical negligence recoverable in full

A £5,680 after-the-event (ATE) insurance premium for an indemnity of £10,000 can be recovered in a clinical negligence case, the High Court has ruled.

Master Leonard in the Senior Court Cost Office held in favour of insurers Temple Legal Protection that its ATE premium for clinical negligence was neither unreasonable in amount nor disproportionate and was recoverable in full, in Nokes v Heart of England Foundation Trust (2015) SCCO Ref: CL 1404886.

The claimant took out the insurance policy regarding export reports into liability and causation for her clinical negligence claim.

ATE premiums have been irrecoverable apart from in certain clinical negligence cases since 1 April 2013, when the Legal Aid Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (LASPO) came into force.

Master Leonard found the policy was fully compliant with the statutory requirements and the premium of £5,680 plus insurance premium tax was reasonable and proportionate.

David Pipkin, director, underwriting division at Temple, gave evidence that the ATE insurance market changed post-LASPO, and Temple developed an underwriting model that provided cover for a “basket” of cases which met certain criteria without the extra burden of assessing and setting a bespoke premium for each case.

Patrick Allen, senior partner at Hodge, Jones and Allen, says: “Without ATE insurance to cover expert reports, most clinical negligence clients would be deterred from investigating claims. A viable insurance product for this risk was therefore vital to make the new CFA regime work. The decision means that insurers such as Temple can continue to offer cover and claimants will have the comfort of knowing that insurance is available.”

 
Issue: 7655 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

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