Jackson LJ’s proposal that a party should not be able to recover the cost of their After the Event (ATE) insurance premium has generated a lively debate. Like Marmite, either you love it or you hate it
Matthew Caton proposes a third way in the ATE insurance premium stand-off
Jackson LJ’s proposal that a party should not be able to recover the cost of their After the Event (ATE) insurance premium has generated a lively debate. Like Marmite, either you love it or you hate it, see M Amey, NLJ, 6 August 2010, p1094 and S Gibbs, NLJ, 1 October 2010, p1324.
Abolishing the recovery of ATE premiums would give the insured a financial interest in the level of costs incurred, and help stem the rise in disproportionate costs. However, abolishing the recovery of ATE premiums impacts the access to justice for some parties and would be a step backwards in costs jurisprudence. Should the recoverability baby simply be thrown out with the bath water?
A third way would be either to provide
