Home / Dispute Resolution / Costs and funding / Funding arrangements

Legal News

ATE insurance premiums—reasonableness and proportionality (Demouilpied v Stockport)

Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis

Published on: 12 April 2017

Published by a LexisNexis Dispute Resolution expert

Table of contents

Original news
What practical implications does this judgment have?
What were the facts in this case
What approach is the County Court taking to dealing with the assessment of ATE insurance?
How is the issue of proportionality being addressed by the courts?
What relevance was the issue of ‘reasonableness’?

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: How should the court approach submissions that after the event (ATE) insurance premiums are unreasonable and costs disproportionate? Anil Virji, head of costs and Robert Patterson, senior costs draftsman, at Civil & Commercial Costs Lawyers, analyse the judgment in Demouilpied v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust.

Popular documents

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretion

Security for costs—what is it, its use and the court's discretionThis Practice Note considers security for costs under CPR 25. It explains what an order for security for costs is, who it may be sought against as well as the circumstances in which such an order is generally not available. It

Appeals—costs recovery

Appeals—costs recoveryThis Practice Note provides information on the appeal court’s power to order costs, whether these costs can be summarily assessed and/or ordered on an indemnity basis. whether it is possible to recover the costs incurred during an appeal. It considers the Supreme Court’s power

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)

Fixed costs—fast track trial costs (position prior to 1 October 2023)Note, the extension of the fixed costs regime came into force on 1 October 2023. For all civil cases, other than personal injury and disease, the extended fixed costs regime applies (unless the case is specifically excluded) where

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)

Costs budgeting—completing Precedent T (particulars for varying a costs budget)This Practice Note provides assistance in completing Precedent T. This is the court form that the parties are required to use when seeking party agreement, and/or court approval for a change to their agreed/approved