- In brief: Courts not to second-guess (ATE) underwriters’ decisions (Percy v Anderson-Young)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was this case about?
- What did the court decide?
- Case details
Dispute Resolution analysis: Kristina Lukacova, barrister at New Square Chambers, considers the case Percy v Anderson-Young, in which Mr Justice Martin Spencer held that an after the event (ATE) premium of over £500,000 was recoverable. In the absence of any evidence that the underwriting risk was misjudged by the ATE insurer, the District Judge should not have second-guessed the underwriting decision. Furthermore, given that Ms Percy had little choice but to accept the quotation if she was going to protect herself against the risk of an adverse costs order in excess of £500,000, the premium was proportionate.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial