Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1134 (31 July 2006)

Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2006] EWCA Civ 1134 (31 July 2006)

The court held that the judge below erred in reducing the recoverable ATE premium solely by reference to market data without sufficient regard to the risks insured and the evidence as to the reasonableness of the staged premium model. The staged premium model is legitimate, and the assessment of reasonableness must be based on the evidence of risk, cover, and market conditions, not simply on indicative market rates. The appeal was allowed and the full premium was recoverable.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 1134
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Jonathan Luke Rogers; Defendants/respondents: Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council; Intervener: The Law Society; Interveners: Temple Legal Protection Ltd & Keystone Legal Benefits Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
After the Event (ate) Insurance, Costs Assessment, Proportionality of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs After the Event (ate) Insurance Costs Assessment Proportionality of Costs Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Access to Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Luke Rogers

Claimant/appellant

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

Defendants/respondents

The Law Society

Intervener

Temple Legal Protection Ltd & Keystone Legal Benefits Ltd

Interveners

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reduction of the recoverable ATE insurance premium by the judge below was justified and lawful
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in relying on market data from Litigation Funding to assess reasonableness of the premium
  3. 3 Whether the staged premium model for ATE insurance is legitimate and proportionate under the CPR and Costs Practice Direction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the judge below erred in reducing the recoverable ATE premium solely by reference to market data without sufficient regard to the risks insured and the evidence as to the reasonableness of the staged premium model. The staged premium model is legitimate, and the assessment of reasonableness must be based on the evidence of risk, cover, and market conditions, not simply on indicative market rates. The appeal was allowed and the full premium was recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The full ATE insurance premium as claimed is recoverable.
  • The orders as to costs in the courts below stand; each side to bear its own costs in the Court of Appeal, subject to any specific provision for capped costs if the defendants assert a less advantageous result than any relevant offer.