Pirie v Ayling
The agreement to pay a premium of 20% of damages is not champertous as the insurer does not divide the spoils or intermeddle in litigation; however, a premium calculated as 20% of damages is unreasonable and disproportionate in simple road accident cases. The recoverable premium is limited to £367.50.
- Parties
- Claimant: Veronica Pirie; Defendant: Mrs Doreen Violet Ayling
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 18 February 2003
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Assessment (post Judgment) / Taxation of Costs
- Outcome
- Claim for ATE insurance premium allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- After the Event Insurance, Champerty, Costs Assessment, Reasonableness of Premiums
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Veronica Pirie
Claimant
Mrs Doreen Violet Ayling
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (post Judgment) / Taxation of Costs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an ATE insurance premium calculated as 20% of damages is champertous
- 2 Whether the claimed ATE insurance premium of £2,600 is reasonable and proportionate
Ratio Decidendi
The agreement to pay a premium of 20% of damages is not champertous as the insurer does not divide the spoils or intermeddle in litigation; however, a premium calculated as 20% of damages is unreasonable and disproportionate in simple road accident cases. The recoverable premium is limited to £367.50.
Court Disposition
Claim for ATE insurance premium allowed in part
Orders
- Claimant allowed to recover £367.50 for ATE insurance premium inclusive of IPT
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment