Smith v Interlink Express Parcels Ltd

Smith v Interlink Express Parcels Ltd

The Temple stage 1 premium claimed (£750 plus tax) is disproportionate and unreasonable given the facts, the amount at risk, and available market comparables. In the absence of underwriter evidence, the court applies a broad brush and allows a lower figure based on comparable policies.

Parties
Claimant: David Smith; Defendant: Interlink Express Parcels Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Proceedings (costs Assessment) / Judgment on Disputed ATE Premium
Outcome
Premium reduced; costs assessed.
Legal Topics
ATE Insurance Premium Recoverability, Costs Assessment, Proportionality of Costs
Civil Procedure Insurance Law ATE Insurance Premium Recoverability Costs Assessment Proportionality of Costs

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Smith

Claimant

Interlink Express Parcels Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Proceedings (costs Assessment) / Judgment on Disputed ATE Premium

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the ATE premium claimed by the Claimant reasonable and proportionate given the sums at risk?
  2. 2 Should the court interfere with the claimed premium in the absence of underwriter evidence?

Ratio Decidendi

The Temple stage 1 premium claimed (£750 plus tax) is disproportionate and unreasonable given the facts, the amount at risk, and available market comparables. In the absence of underwriter evidence, the court applies a broad brush and allows a lower figure based on comparable policies.

Court Disposition

Premium reduced; costs assessed.

Orders

  • ATE premium allowed at £450 plus 5% IPT, total £472.50.