Brown -Quinn & Anor v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm) (21 October 2011)

Brown -Quinn & Anor v Equity Syndicate Management Ltd & Anor (Rev 1) [2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm) (21 October 2011)

The insured's right to choose their own solicitor under the 1990 Regulations and EU law cannot be fettered by insurer-imposed panel or non-panel rates. Costs must be assessed under CPR 48.3 for reasonableness, with reference to but not restriction by panel/non-panel rates. The right to choose a solicitor is not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2661 (Comm)
Parties
First Claimant: Christine Brown-Quinn; Second Claimant (case 1), Claimant (case 2), Second Claimant (case 3): Webster Dixon LLP; First Claimant (case 3): Janine Baxter; First Defendant: Equity Syndicate Management Ltd; Second Defendant (cases 1 and 3): Motorplus Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claims (test Cases) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted in favour of Claimants
Legal Topics
Legal Expenses Insurance, Freedom to Choose Solicitor, Assessment of Costs, Interpretation of Insurance Policy, EU Directives Implementation
Insurance Law Civil Procedure Employment Law Legal Expenses Insurance Freedom to Choose Solicitor Assessment of Costs Interpretation of Insurance Policy EU Directives Implementation

Source-derived case record

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christine Brown-Quinn

First Claimant

Webster Dixon LLP

Second Claimant (case 1), Claimant (case 2), Second Claimant (case 3)

Janine Baxter

First Claimant (case 3)

Equity Syndicate Management Ltd

First Defendant

Motorplus Ltd

Second Defendant (cases 1 and 3)

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claims (test Cases) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether BTE legal expenses insurers can restrict insured's choice of solicitor by imposing panel/non-panel rates
  2. 2 Whether the right to choose a solicitor under the 1990 Regulations is limited to one choice or applies to transfers
  3. 3 How costs are to be assessed under the policy and CPR 48.3

Ratio Decidendi

The insured's right to choose their own solicitor under the 1990 Regulations and EU law cannot be fettered by insurer-imposed panel or non-panel rates. Costs must be assessed under CPR 48.3 for reasonableness, with reference to but not restriction by panel/non-panel rates. The right to choose a solicitor is not limited to a single choice, and the insurer cannot unreasonably refuse agreement to a change of Appointed Representative.

Court Disposition

Declaratory relief granted in favour of Claimants

Orders

  • Insureds validly chose Webster Dixon LLP as their solicitors under the policy.
  • Insurer not entitled to refuse insured's choice of solicitor on the basis of rates exceeding panel/non-panel rates.