Background

The claimant brought a solicitor and own client assessment case against her former solicitors and sought extensive disclosure of documentation and correspondence relating to an ATE policy which totalled £392.00.

The Issues

The issues to be decided by the court were:

1. Whether the documents sought by the claimant should have already been disclosed as part of the “full file” originally ordered by the court.

2. Whether it was proportionate for the claimant to seek further disclosure and bring this application, given the £392.00 premium in dispute and the costs of £28,000.00 the claimant incurred in pursuing the application.

3. Whether the ATE premium could even be assessed as part of the statutory bill under the Solicitors Act assessment process or whether it should be dealt with separately as part of the solicitor’s client account.

4. Whether disclosure of the defendant’s telephone recordings with the claimant should be ordered.

Held

Judge Rowley found that most of the accounting, regulatory and centralized ATE documents requested by the claimant would not be expected to be in a typical client file disclosed by the defendant and held that based on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Herbert v HH Law, an ATE premium is not a “solicitor disbursement” to be included in a bill for assessment under the Solicitors Act, unless there is a legal obligation or professional custom to treat it as such.

In conclusion Judge Rowley dismissed the claimant’s application for specific disclosure, both in relation to the ATE premium, documents and telephone recordings.

Comment

This decision serves as an important reminder of whether an ATE insurance policy is a solicitor disbursement, and the approach by the court when looking at the proportionality of disputing legal costs.

See copy of the Judgment here:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2024/1100.html

< Back to case list