Legal News

Additional liabilities, proportionality and clinical negligence claims (King v Basildon)

Published on: 24 January 2017

Table of contents

  • What are the learning points from this Cost Master’s decision?
  • What was this case about?
  • Why is this decision important?
  • What was the decision in this case?
  • Interpretation of CPR 44.3(5) and CPR PD 48

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: Master Rowley, sitting in the Senior Courts Costs Office (SCCO) considered the approach taken by Master Gordon-Saker in the earlier case of BNM v MGN in terms of the application of the post-Jackson test of proportionality to after-the-event (ATE) insurance premiums and conditional fee agreement (CFA) success fees. The Master chose to interpret the test under CPR 44.3(5) differently, as expressly not applicable to such additional liabilities.

Popular documents