Qualifying Insurers Subscribing To ARP & Anor v Ross & Co & Anor

Qualifying Insurers Subscribing To ARP & Anor v Ross & Co & Anor

The ARP and Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Scheme do not restrict, prevent, or distort competition within the United Kingdom; premiums are not excessive relative to risk and cost; the scheme is pro-competitive and exempt under Schedule 3 para 5; Mr. Ross's defence has no real prospect of success under Chapter I or II prohibitions.

Parties
Claimant: The Qualifying Insurers Subscribing to the ARP; Claimant: Capita London Market Services Limited; First Defendant: Ross & Co (Mr. Graham Ross); Part 20 Defendant: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
defence dismissed, summary judgment granted
Legal Topics
Solicitors Indemnity Insurance, Assigned Risks Pool, Competition Act 1998, Dominant Position, Legal Exemption
Competition Law Insurance Law Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Assigned Risks Pool Competition Act 1998 Dominant Position Legal Exemption

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Qualifying Insurers Subscribing to the ARP

Claimant

Capita London Market Services Limited

Claimant

Ross & Co (Mr. Graham Ross)

First Defendant

The Law Society

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Scheme and ARP breach Chapter I and II prohibitions of the Competition Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether the ARP premium and operation restrict competition or constitute abuse of dominant position
  3. 3 Whether the scheme is exempt under Schedule 3 para 5 Competition Act 1998

Ratio Decidendi

The ARP and Solicitors Indemnity Insurance Scheme do not restrict, prevent, or distort competition within the United Kingdom; premiums are not excessive relative to risk and cost; the scheme is pro-competitive and exempt under Schedule 3 para 5; Mr. Ross's defence has no real prospect of success under Chapter I or II prohibitions.

Court Disposition

defence dismissed, summary judgment granted

Orders

  • Defence of first defendant dismissed under CPR Rule 24.2
  • Judgment for claimants against first defendant for £56,847.73 with interest