Key Facts
- •Claimant applied for specific disclosure of nine categories of documents relating to a £392 ATE premium charged by the defendant solicitors.
- •The documents sought included communications with insurance brokers and insurers regarding the ATE policy.
- •The claimant argued that the defendant's failure to provide these documents, despite an earlier order for full file disclosure, hampered their ability to challenge the reasonableness of the ATE premium.
- •The defendant argued that the ATE premium was not subject to assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974 and that the documents were not kept in their client file.
- •The claimant also sought disclosure of call recordings relating to the matter, claiming they would help assess the reasonableness of the time claimed.
- •The claimant's costs for this application were £28,535, significantly exceeding the ATE premium at stake.
Legal Principles
Proportionality of costs in relation to the amount in dispute.
CPR 44.3(5)
Test for determining whether a disbursement is a 'solicitors' disbursement' under the Solicitors Act 1974.
Herbert v H&H Law Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 527
ATE premiums are generally not considered 'solicitors' disbursements' and are not subject to assessment under the Solicitors Act 1974.
Herbert v H&H Law Limited [2019] EWCA Civ 527
The overriding objective requires that cases are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost.
CPR
Outcomes
Claimant's application for specific disclosure was dismissed.
The court found the application disproportionate given the modest amount of the ATE premium (£392) and the significantly higher costs incurred by the claimant (£28,535) in pursuing the application. The court also held that the ATE premium was not assessable under the Solicitors Act 1974, following the precedent set in Herbert v H&H Law Limited.