West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust

West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust

The appeals are allowed. The ATE insurance premiums paid by the appellants were reasonable and typical within the market. The respondent failed to provide substantive evidence or expert analysis to demonstrate that the premiums were unreasonable or that alternative policies were truly comparable or available. The district judges erred by substituting their own instinctive calculations or relying on non-comparable policies. Once an ATE premium is found to be reasonable, it should not be further reduced for proportionality. The proper approach to costs assessment is to assess reasonableness line-by-line, then consider proportionality, but exclude unavoidable costs such as reasonable ATE...

Parties
Appellant: Suzanne West; Respondent: Stockport NHS Foundation Trust; Appellant: Lee Thomas Demouilpied
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (costs Assessment in Clinical Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
ATE Insurance Premiums, Reasonableness of Costs, Proportionality of Costs, Clinical Negligence, Block Rated Insurance Policies
Civil Procedure Costs Law Insurance Law ATE Insurance Premiums Reasonableness of Costs Proportionality of Costs Clinical Negligence Block Rated Insurance Policies

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suzanne West

Appellant

Stockport NHS Foundation Trust

Respondent

Lee Thomas Demouilpied

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (costs Assessment in Clinical Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 How should a reasonableness challenge to an ATE premium be made and resolved?
  2. 2 Is a proportionality challenge limited to the circumstances of the case or can it go wider?
  3. 3 If the ATE insurance premium is reasonable, should it also be subjected to a proportionality assessment?

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals are allowed. The ATE insurance premiums paid by the appellants were reasonable and typical within the market. The respondent failed to provide substantive evidence or expert analysis to demonstrate that the premiums were unreasonable or that alternative policies were truly comparable or available. The district judges erred by substituting their own instinctive calculations or relying on non-comparable policies. Once an ATE premium is found to be reasonable, it should not be further reduced for proportionality. The proper approach to costs assessment is to assess reasonableness line-by-line, then consider proportionality, but exclude unavoidable costs such as reasonable ATE...

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • The full ATE insurance premiums claimed by the appellants are recoverable.
  • The previous reductions to the premiums by the lower courts are set aside.