Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

Rogers v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

The appeal should proceed as a test case with permission to adduce further evidence, given the public importance and need for clarity in the ATE insurance market. Directions are given for evidence and submissions from parties and interveners, with costs protections for the respondent.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Jonathan Luke Rogers; Defendant/respondent: Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council; Intervener (insurer for Claimant): DAS Insurance Company; Intervener: Allianz Cornhill; Intervener: Abbey Legal Protection; Intervener: Brit Insurance Limited; Intervener: LAMP Insurance; Intervener: Temple Legal Protection Limited; Intervener: Keystone Legal Benefits Limited; Intervener: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission for Second Appeal and Directions
Outcome
Permission to rely on further evidence granted; directions for test case procedure issued.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, After the Event Insurance, Proportionality, Test Case Procedure
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Costs Assessment After the Event Insurance Proportionality Test Case Procedure

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Luke Rogers

Claimant/appellant

Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council

Defendant/respondent

DAS Insurance Company

Intervener (insurer for Claimant)

Allianz Cornhill

Intervener

Abbey Legal Protection

Intervener

Brit Insurance Limited

Intervener

LAMP Insurance

Intervener

Temple Legal Protection Limited

Intervener

Keystone Legal Benefits Limited

Intervener

The Law Society

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission for Second Appeal and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reduction of the ATE insurance premium by the lower court was justified
  2. 2 The correct approach to proportionality and reasonableness in ATE insurance premiums
  3. 3 Whether the court should allow new evidence on appeal regarding ATE premium calculation

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal should proceed as a test case with permission to adduce further evidence, given the public importance and need for clarity in the ATE insurance market. Directions are given for evidence and submissions from parties and interveners, with costs protections for the respondent.

Court Disposition

Permission to rely on further evidence granted; directions for test case procedure issued.

Orders

  • Permission granted to adduce new evidence by Mr Bellamy for DAS.
  • Interveners permitted to file written submissions and evidence by specified dates.