Herbert v H H Law Ltd
Decision date: 3 April 2019
Neutral citation: [2019] EWCA Civ 527
Court: Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Insurance classification confidence: high
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
A short description of the case, material issue, and outcome where supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this overview: medium
The appeal concerned (1) the application of CPR 46.9(3) to a 100% success fee under a conditional fee agreement and (2) whether an ATE insurance premium is a solicitor’s disbursement for the purposes of a solicitor-and-client costs assessment. The court concluded (as recorded in the supplied text) that the ATE premium is not a solicitor’s disbursement to be included in the bill on assessment and allowed the appeal on that point. The supplied text does not permit a clear statement of any definitive outcome on the CPR 46.9(3) success-fee issue.
Ratio decidendi
The legal reasoning necessary to the outcome, where it can safely be identified from the judgment.
AI confidence in this ratio summary: medium
A court should not treat an ATE insurance premium as a solicitor’s disbursement on assessment unless there is evidence that the solicitor, as such, is obliged to pay it irrespective of client funding or that there is a customary practice of treating such premiums as disbursements; the client’s liability arises from the insurance contract, and absence of evidence of a relevant custom means the premium is not a solicitor’s disbursement.
Obiter dicta
Judicial observations that were not necessary to the outcome, where they can safely be identified.
AI confidence in this obiter summary: low
The court observed that if the professional consequences of that rule are thought unsatisfactory the Solicitors Regulation Authority and the Law Society could consider measures to bring ATE premiums within the principle of what counts as a solicitor’s disbursement.
Warning
The automated summary was prepared from selected parts of a longer judgment; consult the original decision for the complete reasoning. The middle of the judgment was omitted from the judgment; that omission limits the ability to state fully the court’s reasoning or any definitive disposition on the CPR 46.9(3) success-fee issue.