Winmill v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Winmill v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

The ATE insurance premiums claimed were higher than strictly necessary in the circumstances. Applying the approach in Parsons, as endorsed by Judge Hawkesworth QC, the recoverable premium in the Winmill case is reduced to £5,750 plus IPT, and in the Pearson case to £6,250 plus IPT. The court found the block-rated premium approach justified but considered the specific facts and complexity of each case to determine a reasonable recoverable amount.

Parties
Claimant: Terence Winmill; Defendant: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council; Claimant: Bernard Pearson; First Defendant: Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council; Second Defendant: The Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement; Third Defendant: Derbyshire County Council; Fourth Defendant: Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil (costs Assessment) / Detailed Assessment of ATE Insurance Premium in Costs
Outcome
Partially allowed (premium reduced)
Legal Topics
After the Event Insurance, Costs Assessment, Proportionality of Premiums, Block Rated Premiums, Conditional Fee Agreements
Civil Procedure Costs After the Event Insurance Costs Assessment Proportionality of Premiums Block Rated Premiums Conditional Fee Agreements

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence Winmill

Claimant

Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant

Bernard Pearson

Claimant

Wakefield Metropolitan Borough Council

First Defendant

The Trustees of the Chatsworth Settlement

Second Defendant

Derbyshire County Council

Third Defendant

Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (costs Assessment) / Detailed Assessment of ATE Insurance Premium in Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is entitled to recover the full ATE insurance premium claimed or a lower figure
  2. 2 Whether the premium claimed was reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

The ATE insurance premiums claimed were higher than strictly necessary in the circumstances. Applying the approach in Parsons, as endorsed by Judge Hawkesworth QC, the recoverable premium in the Winmill case is reduced to £5,750 plus IPT, and in the Pearson case to £6,250 plus IPT. The court found the block-rated premium approach justified but considered the specific facts and complexity of each case to determine a reasonable recoverable amount.

Court Disposition

Partially allowed (premium reduced)

Orders

  • Winmill case: ATE insurance premium recoverable at £5,750 plus IPT; all other costs issues to be determined by the District Judge in Sheffield.
  • Pearson case: ATE insurance premium recoverable at £6,250 plus IPT; costs otherwise agreed at £26,200.