Percy v Anderson-Young

The District Judge erred by reducing the ATE premium without expert evidence and by improperly second-guessing the underwriter's risk assessment. The premium was necessarily incurred, reasonable, and proportionate given the litigation risk and circumstances. The appeal is allowed and the full premium is recoverable.

Source-derived case information.

Parties: Claimant: Lisa Marie Percy; Litigation Friend: Richard Percy; Defendant: Michael Anderson-Young
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 01 November 2017
Procedural Posture: Personal Injury / Appeal From Costs Assessment
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: ATE Insurance Premium, Costs Assessment, Proportionality, Reasonableness, Conditional Fee Agreements

Civil Procedure Costs ATE Insurance Premium Costs Assessment Proportionality Reasonableness Conditional Fee Agreements

Source-derived case record

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8

Parties

Lisa Marie Percy

Claimant

Richard Percy

Litigation Friend

Michael Anderson-Young

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Appeal From Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

1 Whether the ATE insurance premium of £533,017.13 was reasonable and proportionate for the additional cover taken out within 45 days of trial
2 Whether the District Judge erred in reducing the premium without expert evidence and by second-guessing the underwriter's risk assessment

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Assessment of ATE premium at £533,017.13 as sought in the bill of costs

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.