Wooldridge v Hayes

Wooldridge v Hayes

The ATE insurance premium and insurance premium tax are recoverable as costs because the premium was not unreasonable in amount, the policy was not illusory, and any non-compliance with the Costs Practice Direction was technical, caused no prejudice, and warranted full relief from sanctions. The Defendants failed to show comparable insurance was available at a lower cost, and the Claimant's purchase of the automatic increase option was reasonable given the risks.

Parties
Claimant: Joy Suzanne Wooldridge (by Edward William Wooldridge, Litigation Friend); 1st Defendant: Stephen Gerald Hayes; 2nd Defendant: Vulcan Motors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment Following Personal Injury Settlement / Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Insurance premium and insurance premium tax allowed as claimed; relief from sanctions granted for technical breach; costs to Claimant on standard basis.
Legal Topics
After the Event Insurance, Costs Assessment, Relief From Sanctions, Reasonableness of Insurance Premiums
Civil Procedure Insurance Law After the Event Insurance Costs Assessment Relief From Sanctions Reasonableness of Insurance Premiums

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joy Suzanne Wooldridge (by Edward William Wooldridge, Litigation Friend)

Claimant

Stephen Gerald Hayes

1st Defendant

Vulcan Motors Limited

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment Following Personal Injury Settlement / Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the after the event (ATE) insurance premium and insurance premium tax are recoverable as costs
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant complied with the Costs Practice Direction regarding disclosure of funding arrangements
  3. 3 Whether the ATE insurance cover was illusory or of minimal value

Ratio Decidendi

The ATE insurance premium and insurance premium tax are recoverable as costs because the premium was not unreasonable in amount, the policy was not illusory, and any non-compliance with the Costs Practice Direction was technical, caused no prejudice, and warranted full relief from sanctions. The Defendants failed to show comparable insurance was available at a lower cost, and the Claimant's purchase of the automatic increase option was reasonable given the risks.

Court Disposition

Insurance premium and insurance premium tax allowed as claimed; relief from sanctions granted for technical breach; costs to Claimant on standard basis.

Orders

  • The Defendants shall pay the ATE insurance premium (£7,469) and insurance premium tax (£373.45) as part of the Claimant's costs.
  • Costs of these proceedings to the Claimant on the standard basis, to be assessed if not agreed.