Professional Indemnity
|
(This section of the website is still under development) This Section of the website contains Case Notes on the following cases. To access the Case Note, click on the name of the case. To get an email alert each time a new case note is added to this section of the website, join the mailing list.
Victoria Griffin v. Denise Kingsmill (a solicitor) and Judge Peter Clark (a
barrister at the time)
Summary
Leave to appeal to the House of Lords pending
Dean v. Allin & Watts
Hands v. Coopers & Lybrand
Merrett v. Babb
Case No. DMC/PI/02/01 Callery v. Gray and Russell v. Pal Pak Corrugated Ltd English Court of Appeal: Judgment given by Woolf LCJ: Unreported: July 2001 PERSONAL INJURY CLAIMS IN ROAD TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASES: CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS: SUCCESS FEES: AFTER THE EVENT INSURANCE: SETTLEMENT PRIOR TO ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS: RECOVERABILITY FROM DEFENDANT: LEGALITY OF TWO-STAGE SUCCESS FEES: WHETHER PREMIUM FOR OWN COSTS INSURANCE RECOVERABLE: PREMIUM FOR VARIOUS POLICY BENEFITS: USE MADE OF PREMIUM BY INSURERS Where straightforward personal injury claims, such as those arising from road traffic accidents, either succeed or are settled on terms that the defendant will pay the claimant’s costs, the claimant can recover from the defendant a reasonable success fee and a reasonable premium cost for After-the-Event (ATE) insurance, even if the case was settled before the issue of proceedings. The maximum success fee recoverable in such cases would be 20%. Raylee Harley(a Barrister) &
Glasgow Harley (a solicitors' firm) v Robert McDonald This case examined the question, which up to this point had been open under New Zealand law, whether the New Zealand High Court had the power, in appropriate cases, to make barristers, as well as solicitors, personally liable for costs. The PC decided that the NZ High Court did have that power. In deciding the case, the PC applied principles which had been applicable in England and Wales prior to the introduction of Wasted Costs Orders, pursuant to S.51 of the Supreme Courts Act 1981. The PC kept open the question whether, under New Zealand law, barristers
should still enjoy immunity from suit from their lay clients. After the decision
of the Court of Appeal in New Zealand but before the appeal to the PC was heard,
the House of Lords held, in the case of Arthur J S Hall & Co v. Simons, that
public interest in the administration of justice no longer required the
continuation of the immunity rule in England and Wales.
|
These Case Notes have been prepared with care, but neither the Editor nor the International and other Contributors can guarantee that they are free from error, nor that they contain every pertinent point. Reliance should not therefore be placed upon them without independent verification. The Editor and the International and other Contributors disclaim all liability for any loss of whatsoever nature and howsoever arising as a result of others acting or refraining from acting in reliance on the contents of this website and the information to which it gives access. The Editor claims copyright in the content of the website. |