RSA Pursuit Test Cases, Re [2005] EWHC 90003 (Costs) (27 May 2005)

RSA Pursuit Test Cases, Re [2005] EWHC 90003 (Costs) (27 May 2005)

The Pursuit ATE insurance policy is not void for uncertainty; the premium is sufficiently certain at contract formation. The arrangement is not champertous or contrary to public policy. The method of premium calculation, though open to criticism, is not inherently flawed and does not render the premium irrecoverable. The claimants acted reasonably in taking out the Pursuit policy in the circumstances of each case. The premiums are, subject to detailed assessment, recoverable under s.29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. There is no breach of the indemnity principle in Farr. Issues of commission and BTE cover do not affect the outcome in these test cases.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 90003 (Costs)
Parties
Insurer/applicant: RSA First Assist; Claimant: Deborah Baker; Claimant: Anthony Baker; Claimant: Clarke; Claimant: Sandiford; Claimant: Farr; Defendant: Addenbrookes; Defendant: Euromark; Defendant: Tom James; Defendant: Price's Patent Candles; Defendant: Kerslake
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs (test Cases) / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues in Costs Assessment
Outcome
Premiums under the Pursuit policy are, in principle, recoverable as costs subject to detailed assessment; challenges to enforceability and public policy fail.
Legal Topics
After the Event (ate) Insurance, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas), Recoverability of Insurance Premiums, Champerty, Reasonableness of Costs, Access to Justice Act 1999 S.29
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs After the Event (ate) Insurance Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) Recoverability of Insurance Premiums Champerty Reasonableness of Costs +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 15
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RSA First Assist

Insurer/applicant

Deborah Baker

Claimant

Anthony Baker

Claimant

Clarke

Claimant

Sandiford

Claimant

Farr

Claimant

Addenbrookes

Defendant

Euromark

Defendant

Tom James

Defendant

Price's Patent Candles

Defendant

Kerslake

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs (test Cases) / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues in Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the Pursuit ATE insurance contract void for uncertainty due to premium calculation?
  2. 2 Is the insurance arrangement champertous and unlawful?
  3. 3 Is the method of premium calculation inherently flawed?

Ratio Decidendi

The Pursuit ATE insurance policy is not void for uncertainty; the premium is sufficiently certain at contract formation. The arrangement is not champertous or contrary to public policy. The method of premium calculation, though open to criticism, is not inherently flawed and does not render the premium irrecoverable. The claimants acted reasonably in taking out the Pursuit policy in the circumstances of each case. The premiums are, subject to detailed assessment, recoverable under s.29 of the Access to Justice Act 1999. There is no breach of the indemnity principle in Farr. Issues of commission and BTE cover do not affect the outcome in these test cases.

Court Disposition

Premiums under the Pursuit policy are, in principle, recoverable as costs subject to detailed assessment; challenges to enforceability and public policy fail.

Orders

  • Premiums in each test case to be assessed for reasonableness and quantum on the facts.
  • No reduction of premium solely for late inception unless unreasonable.