Qualifying Insurers Subscribing To ARP & Anor v Ross & Co & Anor [2004] EWHC 1181 (Ch) (25 May 2004)

Qualifying Insurers Subscribing To ARP & Anor v Ross & Co & Anor [2004] EWHC 1181 (Ch) (25 May 2004)

Mr. Ross's defence has no real prospect of success; the ARP scheme is part of a pro-competitive system, premiums are not excessive relative to risk, and there is no evidence of restriction or abuse of competition. The claimants are entitled to summary judgment for the premium and interest.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1181 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Qualifying Insurers Subscribing to the ARP; Claimant: Capita London Market Services Limited; First Defendant: Ross & Co (Mr. Graham Ross); Part 20 Defendant: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
defence dismissed, summary judgment granted
Legal Topics
Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules, Competition Act 1998, Dominant Position, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Assigned Risks Pool (arp)
Competition Law Insurance Law Professional Regulation Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Rules Competition Act 1998 Dominant Position Professional Indemnity Insurance Assigned Risks Pool (arp)

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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Qualifying Insurers Subscribing to the ARP

Claimant

Capita London Market Services Limited

Claimant

Ross & Co (Mr. Graham Ross)

First Defendant

The Law Society

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Scheme and ARP breach Chapter I and II prohibitions of the Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the ARP premium and operation restrict competition or abuse a dominant position

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Ross's defence has no real prospect of success; the ARP scheme is part of a pro-competitive system, premiums are not excessive relative to risk, and there is no evidence of restriction or abuse of competition. The claimants are entitled to summary judgment for the premium and interest.

Court Disposition

defence dismissed, summary judgment granted

Orders

  • Defence of first defendant dismissed under CPR Rule 24.2
  • Judgment for claimants against first defendant for £56,847.73 with interest