Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Insurance premiums
COST BITES 250: SHOULD THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITOR BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER A FULL SUCCESS FEE AND THE ATE PREMIUM? A DECISION MADE ON APPEAL

COST BITES 250: SHOULD THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITOR BE ENTITLED TO RECOVER A FULL SUCCESS FEE AND THE ATE PREMIUM? A DECISION MADE ON APPEAL

July 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content, Personal Injury

We are looking at a decision made on appeal in relation to the very common issue of the percentage of a success fee and the taking out, and subsequent deduction from damages, of an After the Event Insurance policy.  The…

PROVING THINGS 87: FAILURE TO PROVE BASIC ELEMENTS MEANT THAT THE FULL PREMIUM WAS NOT RECOVERED

PROVING THINGS 87: FAILURE TO PROVE BASIC ELEMENTS MEANT THAT THE FULL PREMIUM WAS NOT RECOVERED

March 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Costs, Insurance, Insurance premiums, Members Content

I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Baldwin in Nicolaou -v- Cass (Liverpool CC 1st November 2017).   The claimant failed to recover a substantial figure for a stage 2 premium…

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY AFTER THE EVENT PREMIUM OF £533,017.13 : EYE-WATERING DECISION FOR INSURERS

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY AFTER THE EVENT PREMIUM OF £533,017.13 : EYE-WATERING DECISION FOR INSURERS

November 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Insurance, Insurance premiums, Members Content

In Percy v Anderson-Young [2017] EWHC 2712 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer held that an after the event premium of £533,107.13 was recoverable. There was no sympathy for the defendant.   “… in my judgment, any sympathy for the Defendant here…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: RECOVERABILITY OF PREMIUMS & PROPORTIONALITY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: RECOVERABILITY OF PREMIUMS & PROPORTIONALITY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

November 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Insurance, Insurance premiums, Members Content

In Peterborough & Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust v McMenemy & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1941 the Court of Appeal considered the position in relation to the payment of insurance premiums in clinical negligence cases. The Court decided that it is appropriate…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE COSTS:  POLICY OF £10,000 WAS BOTH REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONAL: HIGH COURT DECISION

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND INSURANCE COSTS: POLICY OF £10,000 WAS BOTH REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONAL: HIGH COURT DECISION

August 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Insurance, Insurance premiums, Members Content

In Mitchell v Gilling-Smith [2017] EWHC B18 (Costs) Master Leonard held that a £10,000 premium incurred in a clinical negligence case was reasonable and proportional.  It also highlights the importance of a paying party bringing actual evidence to court if they…

INSURANCE, FUNDING AND LITIGATION: INSURERS HAD TO PAY SOLICITORS

January 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is an interesting judgment by Stuart Brown QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16). The judgment is available here nesbitjudgment A judgment on…

CHILDREN, SUCCESS FEES AND DEDUCTIONS FROM DAMAGES : AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT

August 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The question of child claimants and deductions from damages remains a live and controversial one. The judgment on this issue of the regional costs judge,District Judge Lumb in A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th…

RECOVERY OF THE INSURANCE PREMIUM IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: 10 KEY POINTS

June 5, 2015 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content

The recent post on the decision in Nokes -v- Heart of England Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC B6 highlighted the issues relating to recoverability of the premium in clinical negligence cases.  Here is a 10 point summary: 1.  ONLY  THAT PART…

AFTER THE EVENT PREMIUM BOTH RECOVERABLE, REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE

June 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content

When is an after the event premium and when is it recoverable? The decision of Master Leonard (sitting as a Judge of the Mayor’s and City County Court) in Nokes -v- Heart of England Foundation Trusts [2015] EWHC B6 (Costs)…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS’ BILLS
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
  • COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
  • SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.