News and Insights

Spring has well and truly sprung and the days are getting warmer so plenty to look forward to including the latest edition of #ATEMatters, the first in our new LPG branding.  We start the ball rolling this month with a look at a Court of Appeal decision focused on the intrinsic link between Date of Knowledge and Limitation. The rather baffling attempt of making a 90:10 liability Part 36 offer to obtain a costs advantage in a ‘Holiday Sickness’ claim is next up and a case where the Judge was justifiably unimpressed.  Fundamental Dishonesty has always been a ‘grey’ area however, in Mantey v Ministry of Defence it was pretty ‘cut and dried’.  Rounding off this edition , we take a look at a Court of Appeal decision regarding the strike out of a claim due to non-attendance followed by the failed attempt by the defendants in a multi-track Clinical Negligence case to depart from standard directions As always, our thanks to David Chalk for his invaluable assistance with #ATEMatters and naturally, please do let us know if you have any queries regarding ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding.   ATEMatters April 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Jun 23 | News
Spring has well and truly sprung and the days are getting warmer so plenty to look forward to including the latest edition of #ATEMatters, the first in our new LPG branding.  We start the ball rolling this month with a look at a Court of Appeal decision focused on the intrinsic link between Date of Knowledge and Limitation. The rather baffling attempt of making a 90:10 liability Part 36 offer to obtain a costs advantage in a ‘Holiday Sickness’ claim is next up and a case where the Judge was justifiably unimpressed.  Fundamental Dishonesty has always been a ‘grey’ area however, in Mantey v Ministry of Defence it was pretty ‘cut and dried’.  Rounding off this edition , we take a look at a Court of Appeal decision regarding the strike out of a claim due to non-attendance followed by the failed attempt by the defendants in a multi-track Clinical Negligence case to depart from standard directions As always, our thanks to David Chalk for his invaluable assistance with #ATEMatters and naturally, please do let us know if you have any queries regarding ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding.   ATEMatters April 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Jun 23 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Steve Ruffle has been appointed as ATE Underwriting Manager and will be operating from our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Steve comes from a legal background, having worked for a number of years at a leading law firm in Surrey before joining Temple in 2009 where he qualified as a Chartered Legal Executive. In 2013, Steve was appointed underwriting manager where he was instrumental in developing insurance and funding options to meet the challenges presented by the Jackson reforms. As well as extensive experience of dealing with a range of commercial litigation, Steve is particularly well known for being an expert when it comes to ATE/funding for professional negligence, defamation and privacy litigation where he has been directly involved with many leading decisions. Steve’s role at Legal Protection Group is to service our rapidly growing ATE broker accounts in the City, and help establish our London office. Steve will report to Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, who also heads up the ATE division of Legal Protection Group. Commenting on the appointment, Phil said “I am delighted that Steve has decided to join Legal Protection Group. Steve has a great understanding of the needs of law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance and funding solutions. He is held in high regard by many in our sector”. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “It is great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert joining our growing ranks” You can contact Steve on: Email: steve.ruffle@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk Direct Dial: 020 7118 0589 Mobile: 07342 997985

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Steve Ruffle has been appointed as ATE Underwriting Manager and will be operating from our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Steve comes from a legal background, having worked for a number of years at a leading law firm in Surrey before joining Temple in 2009 where he qualified as a Chartered Legal Executive. In 2013, Steve was appointed underwriting manager where he was instrumental in developing insurance and funding options to meet the challenges presented by the Jackson reforms. As well as extensive experience of dealing with a range of commercial litigation, Steve is particularly well known for being an expert when it comes to ATE/funding for professional negligence, defamation and privacy litigation where he has been directly involved with many leading decisions. Steve’s role at Legal Protection Group is to service our rapidly growing ATE broker accounts in the City, and help establish our London office. Steve will report to Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, who also heads up the ATE division of Legal Protection Group. Commenting on the appointment, Phil said “I am delighted that Steve has decided to join Legal Protection Group. Steve has a great understanding of the needs of law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance and funding solutions. He is held in high regard by many in our sector”. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “It is great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert joining our growing ranks” You can contact Steve on: Email: steve.ruffle@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk Direct Dial: 020 7118 0589 Mobile: 07342 997985

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following our launch in October 2016, Legal Protection Group (LPG) has made an exciting and positive start and is building a reputation for providing expert ATE solutions backed by excellent response times to new business enquiries. Offering ATE products including Commercial & Civil ATE policies with limits of up to £2.0 million, we have quickly cemented business relationships with major ATE brokers, who recognise and appreciate the level of knowledge and support that Legal Protection Group can provide. With our ATE credentials now firmly established, we have just announced that we will be opening an office in London in June. Located conveniently in Fenchurch Street, this new office will offer greater levels of local support to the important London market, backed and supported by the head office team in Bristol. Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, commented, “We have strong relationships with brokers and Law firms based in London and our Fenchurch Street location will allow us to work more closely with our partners in the capital. We have already attracted a number of well-known and respected ATE professionals to LPG and an excellent start over the last six months has allowed us to accelerate our expansion. We have some very exciting plans for ATE and we will continue to invest in the right people and locations over the coming months.”

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following our launch in October 2016, Legal Protection Group (LPG) has made an exciting and positive start and is building a reputation for providing expert ATE solutions backed by excellent response times to new business enquiries. Offering ATE products including Commercial & Civil ATE policies with limits of up to £2.0 million, we have quickly cemented business relationships with major ATE brokers, who recognise and appreciate the level of knowledge and support that Legal Protection Group can provide. With our ATE credentials now firmly established, we have just announced that we will be opening an office in London in June. Located conveniently in Fenchurch Street, this new office will offer greater levels of local support to the important London market, backed and supported by the head office team in Bristol. Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, commented, “We have strong relationships with brokers and Law firms based in London and our Fenchurch Street location will allow us to work more closely with our partners in the capital. We have already attracted a number of well-known and respected ATE professionals to LPG and an excellent start over the last six months has allowed us to accelerate our expansion. We have some very exciting plans for ATE and we will continue to invest in the right people and locations over the coming months.”

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following on from Legal Protection Group’s strategic partnership with Stride, LPG have announced a long term agreement with Advanced Rent and Van Mildert.  Advanced Rent are a team of experienced residential property financiers and private equity investors with a proven track record in bringing bespoke insurance and financial products to the residential landlord market.  Van Mildert are a unique tenant referencing company and work with some of the best letting agents and software providers in the UK. Andy Westall – Sales Director, Legal Protection Group, “We are naturally delighted to follow on from our earlier success in the landlord market and are pleased to announce a significant strategic partnership with Advanced Rent and Van Mildert.  Both companies share our vision in how to protect landlords from the pressures they face in the rental market today” Christian Balshen – Van Mildert, “Legal Protection Group are an ideal partner for our business, they recognise and understand our priorities and how we want the insurance products to react.  I have been delighted with how quickly they have been able to build a proposal and the genuine flexibility they have shown throughout the implementation process”

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following on from Legal Protection Group’s strategic partnership with Stride, LPG have announced a long term agreement with Advanced Rent and Van Mildert.  Advanced Rent are a team of experienced residential property financiers and private equity investors with a proven track record in bringing bespoke insurance and financial products to the residential landlord market.  Van Mildert are a unique tenant referencing company and work with some of the best letting agents and software providers in the UK. Andy Westall – Sales Director, Legal Protection Group, “We are naturally delighted to follow on from our earlier success in the landlord market and are pleased to announce a significant strategic partnership with Advanced Rent and Van Mildert.  Both companies share our vision in how to protect landlords from the pressures they face in the rental market today” Christian Balshen – Van Mildert, “Legal Protection Group are an ideal partner for our business, they recognise and understand our priorities and how we want the insurance products to react.  I have been delighted with how quickly they have been able to build a proposal and the genuine flexibility they have shown throughout the implementation process”

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
In response to the increasing level of enquiries and growth within our BTE book, we are pleased to announce that we have appointed Gemma Bellamy to the newly created role of BTE Underwriting Technician. Gemma, who joins following a career break, has previous underwriting experience in legal protection insurance as well as more general financial services. Gemma will support Gary Kent, Underwriting Manager, and the wider Legal Protection Group team and will be accountable for ensuring that we maintain our quick response to enquiries and bespoke product requests. Gemma is looking forward to working with the newly established team at Legal Protection Group and being involved in Legal Protection Insurance once again. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “Gemma has joined the company at a critical time for us when both business volumes and general enquiries are increasing. We are committed to delivering excellent service to our brokers and her support will ensure that we can deliver on our promises. We welcome her to the Legal Protection Group team.” Gemma takes up her role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
In response to the increasing level of enquiries and growth within our BTE book, we are pleased to announce that we have appointed Gemma Bellamy to the newly created role of BTE Underwriting Technician. Gemma, who joins following a career break, has previous underwriting experience in legal protection insurance as well as more general financial services. Gemma will support Gary Kent, Underwriting Manager, and the wider Legal Protection Group team and will be accountable for ensuring that we maintain our quick response to enquiries and bespoke product requests. Gemma is looking forward to working with the newly established team at Legal Protection Group and being involved in Legal Protection Insurance once again. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “Gemma has joined the company at a critical time for us when both business volumes and general enquiries are increasing. We are committed to delivering excellent service to our brokers and her support will ensure that we can deliver on our promises. We welcome her to the Legal Protection Group team.” Gemma takes up her role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following on from our recent article on the Supreme Court decision in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant), we are again pleased to see that the court has sought to maintain vested rights and expectations arising from previous law/the LASPO exemptions. In "Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Flood and others" [2017] the media organisation appellants unsuccessfully attempted to argue that the threat of having to pay ATE insurance premiums and success fees was such a financial burden that it meant they were fearful of reporting news of interest to the public. Their legal argument was that the recoverability of additional liabilities infringed Article 10 and their right to freedom of expression and would have a ‘chilling effect’ on their reporting. Background to the Appeal The Supreme Court heard three joined appeals with each involving a challenge to an order for costs made by a High Court judge against a newspaper publisher following trial. Flood v Times Newspapers Limited (“Flood”) and Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd (“Miller”) each involved an allegation that the newspaper had libelled the claimant, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd (“Frost”) involved allegations that the newspaper had unlawfully gathered private information about the claimants by phone hacking. In each case, the newspaper publisher lost at trial and was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs. In each case, the original claimants had entered into Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) and ATE insurance policies where the fees would be recoverable from the losing defendant upon success. Defamation and Privacy proceedings do of course remain litigation types which are exempt from the LASPO provisions introduced in 2013. In each appeal, the media organisations relied upon the decision of the European Court in MGN Ltd v United Kingdom, where it was held that MGN’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed by the order to reimburse the success fee and ATE premium incurred by the claimant. The newspaper publishers contended that the costs orders in the present appeals similarly infringed their rights under Article 10. The Judgment The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the media’s Article 10 rights had been breached as they felt it was inappropriate for it do so without the United Kingdom being a party to the proceedings. They did however find that, even if it was shown that Article 10 rights had been breached, it would then be necessary to consider a claimant’s rights and on balance decide which was more important. When it comes to a claimant’s rights the court identified that they had to consider whether restricting the ability for a claimant to recover legitimate costs which they had incurred would infringe their rights under Article 1 (right to property). The original claimants had incurred financial obligations in reliance on a statute and had a legitimate expectation that the statute would not be retrospectively repealed or otherwise invalidated to their detriment. On balance it was decided that whilst the principle of freedom of expression is a fundamental principle, the just and appropriate order under section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act was to dismiss the appeals, as to allow them would be a graver infringement of the claimants’ rights than the infringement which the newspaper publishers will suffer if the appeals are dismissed. Impact of this decision There were concerns prior to this decision that a ruling in favour of the media would result in ATE premiums for policies already taken out no longer being recoverable and the same for CFA success fees. Fortunately the Supreme Court has clarified the position and made clear that clients who have entered into valid arrangements in line with the law at the time have a right to rely on the arrangement they have made. For future media cases it is clear that the Supreme Court are looking for the Government to come up with an answer to the issue of costs. There is obviously not a simple answer to this question as otherwise there would not be an exemption for media cases in the first place. For the foreseeable future it appears to be that the current recoverable costs regime (plus additional liabilities) will continue unless the Government develops an alternative solution that maintains access to justice. As it is unclear for how long recoverable ATE insurance policies will remain in existence, Legal Protection Group recommend that insurance is taken out at the outset of any new matters as a priority. To discuss your insurance arrangements or any particular cases please call us on 0333 700 1040.      

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Following on from our recent article on the Supreme Court decision in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant), we are again pleased to see that the court has sought to maintain vested rights and expectations arising from previous law/the LASPO exemptions. In "Times Newspapers Ltd and others v Flood and others" [2017] the media organisation appellants unsuccessfully attempted to argue that the threat of having to pay ATE insurance premiums and success fees was such a financial burden that it meant they were fearful of reporting news of interest to the public. Their legal argument was that the recoverability of additional liabilities infringed Article 10 and their right to freedom of expression and would have a ‘chilling effect’ on their reporting. Background to the Appeal The Supreme Court heard three joined appeals with each involving a challenge to an order for costs made by a High Court judge against a newspaper publisher following trial. Flood v Times Newspapers Limited (“Flood”) and Miller v Associated Newspapers Ltd (“Miller”) each involved an allegation that the newspaper had libelled the claimant, and Frost and others v MGN Ltd (“Frost”) involved allegations that the newspaper had unlawfully gathered private information about the claimants by phone hacking. In each case, the newspaper publisher lost at trial and was ordered to pay the claimants’ costs. In each case, the original claimants had entered into Conditional Fee Agreements (CFAs) and ATE insurance policies where the fees would be recoverable from the losing defendant upon success. Defamation and Privacy proceedings do of course remain litigation types which are exempt from the LASPO provisions introduced in 2013. In each appeal, the media organisations relied upon the decision of the European Court in MGN Ltd v United Kingdom, where it was held that MGN’s right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights was infringed by the order to reimburse the success fee and ATE premium incurred by the claimant. The newspaper publishers contended that the costs orders in the present appeals similarly infringed their rights under Article 10. The Judgment The Supreme Court did not rule on whether the media’s Article 10 rights had been breached as they felt it was inappropriate for it do so without the United Kingdom being a party to the proceedings. They did however find that, even if it was shown that Article 10 rights had been breached, it would then be necessary to consider a claimant’s rights and on balance decide which was more important. When it comes to a claimant’s rights the court identified that they had to consider whether restricting the ability for a claimant to recover legitimate costs which they had incurred would infringe their rights under Article 1 (right to property). The original claimants had incurred financial obligations in reliance on a statute and had a legitimate expectation that the statute would not be retrospectively repealed or otherwise invalidated to their detriment. On balance it was decided that whilst the principle of freedom of expression is a fundamental principle, the just and appropriate order under section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act was to dismiss the appeals, as to allow them would be a graver infringement of the claimants’ rights than the infringement which the newspaper publishers will suffer if the appeals are dismissed. Impact of this decision There were concerns prior to this decision that a ruling in favour of the media would result in ATE premiums for policies already taken out no longer being recoverable and the same for CFA success fees. Fortunately the Supreme Court has clarified the position and made clear that clients who have entered into valid arrangements in line with the law at the time have a right to rely on the arrangement they have made. For future media cases it is clear that the Supreme Court are looking for the Government to come up with an answer to the issue of costs. There is obviously not a simple answer to this question as otherwise there would not be an exemption for media cases in the first place. For the foreseeable future it appears to be that the current recoverable costs regime (plus additional liabilities) will continue unless the Government develops an alternative solution that maintains access to justice. As it is unclear for how long recoverable ATE insurance policies will remain in existence, Legal Protection Group recommend that insurance is taken out at the outset of any new matters as a priority. To discuss your insurance arrangements or any particular cases please call us on 0333 700 1040.      

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO, in relation to both success fees and ATE premiums, is to preserve vested rights and expectations arising from the previous law.   In this case the appellant argued that the policy in relation to the appeal in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were distinct “proceedings” and therefore there was no policy in place at the commencement date with the characteristic required by the Act, i.e. that it related to the appeals. Background to the Appeal This judgment relates to a review of the costs assessment that followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 61. The respondent’s solicitors were acting under a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) with after-the-event insurance (“ATE”). The recoverability of a success fee under a CFA and the ATE insurance premium depended on the costs regime which was, subject to transitional provisions, brought to an end on 1 April 2013 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). The respondent had entered into a CFA with her original solicitors, Miller Gardner, on 19 June 2008. Subsequently the CFA was varied in 2009 and in 2012 in response to organisational changes within Miller Gardner and was varied again in August 2013 and January 2014 so that the agreement covered work relating to the appeal.   Likewise, the ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008 and was then ‘topped up’ for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Costs in the Supreme Court were assessed by Master O’Hare and Mrs Registrar di Mambo at £751,463.84, including £31,378.92 for the solicitors’ success fee and £531,235 for the ATE insurance premium. The appellant applied for a review of costs on two grounds: (i) in relation to the success fee, the CFA was not validly assigned to the firms that replaced the respondent’s original solicitors on the record; and (ii) in relation to both the success fee and the ATE premium, these were not recoverable because they were payable under arrangements made by the respondent after LASPO came into force. Judgment The decision reached was 4-1 in favour of the respondent (with all Judges in agreement over the issue of assignment). The only dissent was in relation to whether the top-up element of the ATE premium was recoverable inter parties. Recoverability of the ATE Premium The ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008. It covered legal expenses and liability for the other side’s costs up to and including the “trial period”. It was “topped up” for the appeal to the Court of Appeal and again for the appeal to the Supreme Court. The top-ups did not give rise to fresh contracts and instead were true amendments to the policy which continued in effect subject to the same terms as amended.   But on both occasions, the amendment was made after LAPSO came into force.   The critical question was therefore whether the two appeals constituted part of the same ‘proceedings’ as the trial. The disagreement in interpretation arose from the fact that the wording of the transitional provisions relating to LASPO and ATE premiums differs slightly to that of the corresponding provisions relating to success fees.   Section 46(3) refers to an insurance policy “in relation to the proceedings” i.e. the requisite link is with the proceedings themselves and not to the subject matter of the proceedings, as Section 44(6) of LASPO refers in the context of success fees. Lord Hodge interpreted the transitional provisions as protecting only the pre-existing contractual rights in place before LASPO came into force.   However, the panel agreed 4 to 1 that the purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO is to preserve rights and expectations vested under the previous law and that that purpose would be defeated by a rigid distinction between the different stages of the same litigation. They argued that an insured claimant who succeeds at trial and becomes the respondent to an appeal is locked into litigation; if the top-up premium is not recoverable, it would retrospectively alter the balance of risks on the basis of which the litigation was begun. They therefore determined that the difference in language between sections 44(6) and 46(3) are not significant in this regard and that there is no reason why the legislation should have wished to limit the transitional provisions in section 46(3) to a particular stage in litigation, while extending those in sections 44(6) and 47(2) to arrangements relating to the underlying ‘matter’. For full details of the judgment click https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0037-judgment.pdf  

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO, in relation to both success fees and ATE premiums, is to preserve vested rights and expectations arising from the previous law.   In this case the appellant argued that the policy in relation to the appeal in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court were distinct “proceedings” and therefore there was no policy in place at the commencement date with the characteristic required by the Act, i.e. that it related to the appeals. Background to the Appeal This judgment relates to a review of the costs assessment that followed the decision of the Supreme Court in Plevin (Respondent) v Paragon Personal Finance Limited (Appellant) [2014] UKSC 61. The respondent’s solicitors were acting under a conditional fee agreement (“CFA”) with after-the-event insurance (“ATE”). The recoverability of a success fee under a CFA and the ATE insurance premium depended on the costs regime which was, subject to transitional provisions, brought to an end on 1 April 2013 by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (“LASPO”). The respondent had entered into a CFA with her original solicitors, Miller Gardner, on 19 June 2008. Subsequently the CFA was varied in 2009 and in 2012 in response to organisational changes within Miller Gardner and was varied again in August 2013 and January 2014 so that the agreement covered work relating to the appeal.   Likewise, the ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008 and was then ‘topped up’ for the appeals to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. Costs in the Supreme Court were assessed by Master O’Hare and Mrs Registrar di Mambo at £751,463.84, including £31,378.92 for the solicitors’ success fee and £531,235 for the ATE insurance premium. The appellant applied for a review of costs on two grounds: (i) in relation to the success fee, the CFA was not validly assigned to the firms that replaced the respondent’s original solicitors on the record; and (ii) in relation to both the success fee and the ATE premium, these were not recoverable because they were payable under arrangements made by the respondent after LASPO came into force. Judgment The decision reached was 4-1 in favour of the respondent (with all Judges in agreement over the issue of assignment). The only dissent was in relation to whether the top-up element of the ATE premium was recoverable inter parties. Recoverability of the ATE Premium The ATE policy was originally concluded on 29 October 2008. It covered legal expenses and liability for the other side’s costs up to and including the “trial period”. It was “topped up” for the appeal to the Court of Appeal and again for the appeal to the Supreme Court. The top-ups did not give rise to fresh contracts and instead were true amendments to the policy which continued in effect subject to the same terms as amended.   But on both occasions, the amendment was made after LAPSO came into force.   The critical question was therefore whether the two appeals constituted part of the same ‘proceedings’ as the trial. The disagreement in interpretation arose from the fact that the wording of the transitional provisions relating to LASPO and ATE premiums differs slightly to that of the corresponding provisions relating to success fees.   Section 46(3) refers to an insurance policy “in relation to the proceedings” i.e. the requisite link is with the proceedings themselves and not to the subject matter of the proceedings, as Section 44(6) of LASPO refers in the context of success fees. Lord Hodge interpreted the transitional provisions as protecting only the pre-existing contractual rights in place before LASPO came into force.   However, the panel agreed 4 to 1 that the purpose of the transitional provisions of LASPO is to preserve rights and expectations vested under the previous law and that that purpose would be defeated by a rigid distinction between the different stages of the same litigation. They argued that an insured claimant who succeeds at trial and becomes the respondent to an appeal is locked into litigation; if the top-up premium is not recoverable, it would retrospectively alter the balance of risks on the basis of which the litigation was begun. They therefore determined that the difference in language between sections 44(6) and 46(3) are not significant in this regard and that there is no reason why the legislation should have wished to limit the transitional provisions in section 46(3) to a particular stage in litigation, while extending those in sections 44(6) and 47(2) to arrangements relating to the underlying ‘matter’. For full details of the judgment click https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0037-judgment.pdf  

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The long-running legal challenge to the introduction of employment tribunal fees is nearing its conclusion following a hearing at the Supreme Court. Tribunal fees were first introduced in 2013 and since July of that year anyone who has been treated unlawfully or unfairly by their employer, and who wants to challenge them at an employment tribunal, has had to pay a fee, which ranges from £390 to as much as £1,200. Back in January this year, the government produced a review of the impact of fees showing that there had been a 70% drop in the number of cases since July 2013.  It indicated that low-paid women, especially those treated unfairly when they were pregnant or on maternity leave, have been the biggest losers. UNISON’s case to the Supreme Court will assert that the government’s decision to demand a fee from anyone taking their employer to court has stopped many thousands of badly treated employees – especially those on low incomes – from getting justice.   If the case goes in favour of the government it will mark the end of the appeal process for the union, which has been engaged in a four year legal battle. Unison’s case was first heard in the High Court in 2013 and the Court of Appeal in April 2015. However, its claims were dismissed both times. Unison was represented by Dinah Rose QC of Blackstone Chambers instructed by Unison’s in-house legal officer, solicitor Shantha David. The Lord Chancellor was represented by David Barr QC, of Temple Garden Chambers. Summing up, Rose said ‘it is unlawful for the lord chancellor, by delegated legislation, to introduce a fee scheme that makes enforcement of UK employment law rights uneconomical’. In earlier arguments she said the fees scheme had ‘clearly had a very serious impact on rights of access to justice, shutting out large numbers of the small claims that the tribunal was set up to hear.’   Barr said it was ‘entirely justifiable’ to charge different fees for different levels of service. He added that all alternative systems would be worse than the current ‘two tiered system’. Judgment is expected within six months.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The long-running legal challenge to the introduction of employment tribunal fees is nearing its conclusion following a hearing at the Supreme Court. Tribunal fees were first introduced in 2013 and since July of that year anyone who has been treated unlawfully or unfairly by their employer, and who wants to challenge them at an employment tribunal, has had to pay a fee, which ranges from £390 to as much as £1,200. Back in January this year, the government produced a review of the impact of fees showing that there had been a 70% drop in the number of cases since July 2013.  It indicated that low-paid women, especially those treated unfairly when they were pregnant or on maternity leave, have been the biggest losers. UNISON’s case to the Supreme Court will assert that the government’s decision to demand a fee from anyone taking their employer to court has stopped many thousands of badly treated employees – especially those on low incomes – from getting justice.   If the case goes in favour of the government it will mark the end of the appeal process for the union, which has been engaged in a four year legal battle. Unison’s case was first heard in the High Court in 2013 and the Court of Appeal in April 2015. However, its claims were dismissed both times. Unison was represented by Dinah Rose QC of Blackstone Chambers instructed by Unison’s in-house legal officer, solicitor Shantha David. The Lord Chancellor was represented by David Barr QC, of Temple Garden Chambers. Summing up, Rose said ‘it is unlawful for the lord chancellor, by delegated legislation, to introduce a fee scheme that makes enforcement of UK employment law rights uneconomical’. In earlier arguments she said the fees scheme had ‘clearly had a very serious impact on rights of access to justice, shutting out large numbers of the small claims that the tribunal was set up to hear.’   Barr said it was ‘entirely justifiable’ to charge different fees for different levels of service. He added that all alternative systems would be worse than the current ‘two tiered system’. Judgment is expected within six months.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Martin Rowan, Managing Director, is pleased to announce that Legal Protection Group has joined the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA). The MGAA is a non-profit making organisation that represents UK managing general agents and works both within the professionalism framework of the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) and observes its own code of conduct. The MGAA was formed in 2011 to give the insurance industry a better understanding of what an MGAA is and what they contribute to the insurance market. It is a central body that can put members’ views to government departments and agencies including the FCA and Parliament. It also represents members’ interests in discussions over legislation and regulation which may impact them. In addition it sets best practice guidelines and works actively to improve the Underwriting Agency sector’s professionalism, stability and competitiveness. While the MGAA was instituted for the purpose of giving MGAs a unified voice on these issues, increasingly, the Association is now also serving as an important body for bringing about greater levels of understanding, transparency and professionalism throughout the wider MGA community. Membership is made up of MGAs and their supporting insurer partners together with professional organisations that bring particular knowledge and insight to the delegated underwriting sector. Legal Protection Group is looking forward to becoming an active member of MGAA and joining in with the many events that the Association organises for members.   For more information on the MGAA, please visit www.mgaa.co.uk.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Martin Rowan, Managing Director, is pleased to announce that Legal Protection Group has joined the Managing General Agents’ Association (MGAA). The MGAA is a non-profit making organisation that represents UK managing general agents and works both within the professionalism framework of the Chartered Insurance Institute (CII) and observes its own code of conduct. The MGAA was formed in 2011 to give the insurance industry a better understanding of what an MGAA is and what they contribute to the insurance market. It is a central body that can put members’ views to government departments and agencies including the FCA and Parliament. It also represents members’ interests in discussions over legislation and regulation which may impact them. In addition it sets best practice guidelines and works actively to improve the Underwriting Agency sector’s professionalism, stability and competitiveness. While the MGAA was instituted for the purpose of giving MGAs a unified voice on these issues, increasingly, the Association is now also serving as an important body for bringing about greater levels of understanding, transparency and professionalism throughout the wider MGA community. Membership is made up of MGAs and their supporting insurer partners together with professional organisations that bring particular knowledge and insight to the delegated underwriting sector. Legal Protection Group is looking forward to becoming an active member of MGAA and joining in with the many events that the Association organises for members.   For more information on the MGAA, please visit www.mgaa.co.uk.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Under existing rules, the ATE premium arranged to cover unrecovered disbursements (medical reports) is theoretically recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant (normally the NHS).   However, as we have seen many times before, Judges are not insurance underwriters and the relationship between required risk premiums and “proportionality” can be a difficult subject for them. Here we review the case from a legal prospective, an underwriting risk management perspective and raise questions about the viability of ATE clinical negligence insurance in the current regime. Background Mr Rezek-Clarke had a fairly routine clinical negligence claim against the NHS. His solicitors had correctly estimated that the quantum would be less than £5,000. In the event the award to Mr Rezek-Clarke was £3,250, plus costs on the standard basis. Legal opinion On 29 October 2015, the Claimant’s solicitors served their Bill of Costs in the sum of £72,320.85, including medical reports totalling £18,036.00 and an ATE premium of £31,976.49 and therefore the question arose as to whether these costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. The costs case was heard by Master Simons, Costs Judge, who raised three distinct concerns: the confusion caused by the incorrect premium being claimed in the Bill of Costs; the methodology of calculation of the ATE premium by the Insurer; and whether the costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. Firstly, there was some confusion as to the correct premium charged by the ATE Insurer. The claimants conceded that the premium claimed at £31,976.49 in the Bill of Costs had been incorrectly calculated and that the correct premium was the lower figure of £22,255.23.   The claimant could provide no explanation as to why the certified Bill of Costs contained such a substantial error. In response Master Simons pointed out that “A major difficulty that the Claimants have is that they cannot tell me what the insurance premium is. The amount claimed in the bill is £31,976.49 (including IPT) and a certificate has been produced identifying this amount. The Bill of Costs has been certified as being true and accurate. I am now told that the amount of the insurance premium is wrong and that the correct premium is £22,225.23. In these circumstances I would be justified in disallowing the premium in its entirety”. Master Simons then questioned both the methodology of calculation of the premium and the corresponding proportionality of the claim. “I also question the methodology of calculation of the premium. This is based on the cost of the medical reports whether or not the costs of those reports are reasonable. Where, as in this case, I have considered that the cost of the medical reports is unreasonable and disproportionate in amount, the Claimant is seeking to recover part of a premium that includes an uplift of 200% of those parts of the fees that are unreasonable. As the premium is deferred, surely the basis of calculation should be on the reasonable amount of the fees for the medical reports”. In the event, Master Simons assessed the bill in the sum of £24,604.40, including amounts claimed for medical reports (reduced from £18,036 to £9,000). Master Simons also reduced the ATE premium from £31,976.49 to just £2,120.00. Our view on the ATE insurance arrangements It is unclear why the premium was initially miscalculated. However, looking at the facts of the case, one does wonder why a case, with such a glaring premium miscalculation at the outset was pursued to the SCCO. Of all the numerous challenged clinical negligence cases, this was not the case to run. Secondly, the policy in this case was block-rated which meant that the method of calculating the premium did not relate to the facts of the individual case but instead to the basket of risks that the ATE Insurer holds for cases across its book. On behalf of the ATE Insurer, David Brown an ATE Underwriting Manager, stated that that the recoverable element of premium for clinical negligence cases is rated at 200% of the estimated costs of liability plus IPT at the prevailing rate. Mr Brown said that the use of a 200% rating factor flows from the company’s historical experience that there is a failure rate of 75% on insured pre-issue cases. With regard to the calculation of the premium, while we support the method of calculation i.e. a basket of risks, which has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Rogers ( a landmark ATE case), we struggle to reconcile the actual rates used within the calculation.   We believe that in order to insure a risk with a 75% failure rate, the premium required to cover just the burning cost of claims is 300% of the risk, not 200%. Add to this the reasonable cost of expenses – say 15% – and a profit margin of 10% and the premium required is nearly 400% of the sum insured. So, on the face of it, the ATE insurer is charging a premium roughly half of what they need in order to make a profit based upon an expected loss rate of 75%. However, it may be that the insurer was prepared to suffer losses on pre-issue business, in the hope of making these up on post-issue business where the failure rate is much lower. This then leads to the next point which is proportionality. It should be obvious to any insurer that a court is not going to allow a premium as claimed of £31,976.49 + IPT in a small claim worth just £3,250. In the event, the judge allowed £2,120, which represents 65% of the claim value and this gives us a clue as to what might be regarded as a proportionate premium. The future for ATE Clinical Negligence insurance? Recent underwriting and cash flow results from companies with significant Clinical Negligence ATE books clearly support the conclusion that this type of ATE business is generally unprofitable. As from October 2018 there will be a major shake-up in the costs regime for personal injury cases generally and it is almost inconceivable that Clinical Negligence ATE premiums will continue to be partly recoverable after this date. This should herald a new beginning for Clinical Negligence ATE and companies such as Legal Protection Group, without the burden of under-priced legacy risks, will be at the forefront of the new era requiring much tighter selection of cases and in which ATE premiums will be deducted from damages. For further information, please contact our Director of Underwriting, Phil Bellamy, on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Under existing rules, the ATE premium arranged to cover unrecovered disbursements (medical reports) is theoretically recoverable from the unsuccessful defendant (normally the NHS).   However, as we have seen many times before, Judges are not insurance underwriters and the relationship between required risk premiums and “proportionality” can be a difficult subject for them. Here we review the case from a legal prospective, an underwriting risk management perspective and raise questions about the viability of ATE clinical negligence insurance in the current regime. Background Mr Rezek-Clarke had a fairly routine clinical negligence claim against the NHS. His solicitors had correctly estimated that the quantum would be less than £5,000. In the event the award to Mr Rezek-Clarke was £3,250, plus costs on the standard basis. Legal opinion On 29 October 2015, the Claimant’s solicitors served their Bill of Costs in the sum of £72,320.85, including medical reports totalling £18,036.00 and an ATE premium of £31,976.49 and therefore the question arose as to whether these costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. The costs case was heard by Master Simons, Costs Judge, who raised three distinct concerns: the confusion caused by the incorrect premium being claimed in the Bill of Costs; the methodology of calculation of the ATE premium by the Insurer; and whether the costs were proportionate to the value of the claim. Firstly, there was some confusion as to the correct premium charged by the ATE Insurer. The claimants conceded that the premium claimed at £31,976.49 in the Bill of Costs had been incorrectly calculated and that the correct premium was the lower figure of £22,255.23.   The claimant could provide no explanation as to why the certified Bill of Costs contained such a substantial error. In response Master Simons pointed out that “A major difficulty that the Claimants have is that they cannot tell me what the insurance premium is. The amount claimed in the bill is £31,976.49 (including IPT) and a certificate has been produced identifying this amount. The Bill of Costs has been certified as being true and accurate. I am now told that the amount of the insurance premium is wrong and that the correct premium is £22,225.23. In these circumstances I would be justified in disallowing the premium in its entirety”. Master Simons then questioned both the methodology of calculation of the premium and the corresponding proportionality of the claim. “I also question the methodology of calculation of the premium. This is based on the cost of the medical reports whether or not the costs of those reports are reasonable. Where, as in this case, I have considered that the cost of the medical reports is unreasonable and disproportionate in amount, the Claimant is seeking to recover part of a premium that includes an uplift of 200% of those parts of the fees that are unreasonable. As the premium is deferred, surely the basis of calculation should be on the reasonable amount of the fees for the medical reports”. In the event, Master Simons assessed the bill in the sum of £24,604.40, including amounts claimed for medical reports (reduced from £18,036 to £9,000). Master Simons also reduced the ATE premium from £31,976.49 to just £2,120.00. Our view on the ATE insurance arrangements It is unclear why the premium was initially miscalculated. However, looking at the facts of the case, one does wonder why a case, with such a glaring premium miscalculation at the outset was pursued to the SCCO. Of all the numerous challenged clinical negligence cases, this was not the case to run. Secondly, the policy in this case was block-rated which meant that the method of calculating the premium did not relate to the facts of the individual case but instead to the basket of risks that the ATE Insurer holds for cases across its book. On behalf of the ATE Insurer, David Brown an ATE Underwriting Manager, stated that that the recoverable element of premium for clinical negligence cases is rated at 200% of the estimated costs of liability plus IPT at the prevailing rate. Mr Brown said that the use of a 200% rating factor flows from the company’s historical experience that there is a failure rate of 75% on insured pre-issue cases. With regard to the calculation of the premium, while we support the method of calculation i.e. a basket of risks, which has been approved by the Court of Appeal in Rogers ( a landmark ATE case), we struggle to reconcile the actual rates used within the calculation.   We believe that in order to insure a risk with a 75% failure rate, the premium required to cover just the burning cost of claims is 300% of the risk, not 200%. Add to this the reasonable cost of expenses – say 15% – and a profit margin of 10% and the premium required is nearly 400% of the sum insured. So, on the face of it, the ATE insurer is charging a premium roughly half of what they need in order to make a profit based upon an expected loss rate of 75%. However, it may be that the insurer was prepared to suffer losses on pre-issue business, in the hope of making these up on post-issue business where the failure rate is much lower. This then leads to the next point which is proportionality. It should be obvious to any insurer that a court is not going to allow a premium as claimed of £31,976.49 + IPT in a small claim worth just £3,250. In the event, the judge allowed £2,120, which represents 65% of the claim value and this gives us a clue as to what might be regarded as a proportionate premium. The future for ATE Clinical Negligence insurance? Recent underwriting and cash flow results from companies with significant Clinical Negligence ATE books clearly support the conclusion that this type of ATE business is generally unprofitable. As from October 2018 there will be a major shake-up in the costs regime for personal injury cases generally and it is almost inconceivable that Clinical Negligence ATE premiums will continue to be partly recoverable after this date. This should herald a new beginning for Clinical Negligence ATE and companies such as Legal Protection Group, without the burden of under-priced legacy risks, will be at the forefront of the new era requiring much tighter selection of cases and in which ATE premiums will be deducted from damages. For further information, please contact our Director of Underwriting, Phil Bellamy, on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The Government has now confirmed that the reforms to the personal injury claims regime will come into effect on 1st October 2018 when the Prisons & Courts Act becomes law. The key changes are: The Small Claims limit for all road traffic accident matters will increase from £1,000 to £5,000. The Small Claims limit for non-RTA cases will increase from £1,000 to £2,000. A new damages tariff for most RTA soft tissue injuries (whiplash) will be introduced. Offers to settle claims before a medical report is obtained will be banned.   Prior to the publication of the Prisons & Courts Bill, it was widely assumed that the Small Claims limit would be increased fairly quickly and that any tariff for whiplash claims might follow at a later date, so the Government’s decision to implement all of the changes in October next year will have come as a nasty shock to RTA personal injury lawyers. What do the changes mean? At present, RTA personal injury claimants who have not arranged legal protection insurance will most likely be directed to a law firm happy to run the case in return for a 25% contingency fee. The claimant will also be expected to arrange ATE cover which is likely to cost around £50 for portal cases. Currently, the average award for soft tissue injuries of 4 – 6 months duration is £2,150, so the cost to the claimant amounts to £587.50 including ATE cover, leaving a net award of £1,562.50. The claimant’s lawyer will, in addition to the deduction from damages, also recover fixed costs of at least £200 but more likely £500, so the lawyer’s total income normally amounts to just over £1,000. The increase in the Small Claims limit alone would have seen lawyers adjust their business model to take a higher contingency fee percentage, in order to compensate for the reduction in fixed recoverable costs. For example a 40% deduction from an average award still nets £860, plus some small recoverable costs. However, the killer blow for claimant RTA lawyers (and those injured in accidents) is the introduction of the whiplash tariff. The typical £2,150 paid out under the current system falls to just £450 under the tariff, so even a contingency fee of 40% still only produces an income of £180 which (most lawyers would say) is not enough to cover the cost of running the claim. In any event, it is doubtful that a typical claimant will be bothered to make a claim in the first place if their net award is likely to be as low as £270, especially as they will have to go through the process of being medically examined. It’s difficult to be precise at this stage, but it would be very surprising if the total number of RTA claims brought by those who do not have legal expenses insurance did not drop by at least 50 percent. Legal Expenses Insurance A significant number of motorists already purchase Motor Legal Expenses Insurance (MLEI) and this cover becomes even more necessary under the new regime. The reduction in typical damages of nearly 80 percent is bad enough for innocent victims but if this is also accompanied by a contingency fee deduction, then the whole situation becomes untenable. At least those with MLEI will keep 100 percent of what compensation is available and this should be a strong selling point for all motor insurance brokers or other retailers. Of course, brokers also enjoy a significant income stream from MLEI sales, with a typical commission of at least £25 per policy thanks to the very low net premium rates currently available in the market. Now that the extent of the personal injury changes are known, there will of course be a sharp upward movement in net premiums charged by MLEI providers, as they will no longer be able to get lawyers to handle injury claims free of charge and will in future have to pay the lawyer’s fees. Whereas today’s net premium might be less than £1.00, going forward this is likely to increase to £7.00 – £8.00, thus reducing the broker’s margin. However, we will probably begin to see brokers increasing the retail price of MLEI to make up for some of the increase; for example an increase from £30 to £35 is unlikely to have any significant impact on take-up rates and the increased need for cover will help maintain or improve sales levels. Motorcyclists The new whiplash tariff does not apply to motorcycle accidents. Therefore, motorcyclists will remain entitled to current levels of compensation, all the more reason why they need MLEI cover to avoid a large cash deduction by way of a contingency fee. Indeed, it is hard to see how the demands and needs of a motorcyclist are properly met if their motor insurance does not include legal expenses insurance cover. Unintended Consequences For non-RTA claims (EL, PL and so on) the new Small Claims limit is £2,000, up from £1,000. This will cause some claims inflation. Cases that currently settle for £1,500 will in future settle for just over £2,000, so good news for claimants and lawyers operating on a contingency fee, but bad news for insurers. Informed observers have suggested that the new RTA personal injury regime will result in tens of thousands of redundancies as personal injury lawyers close for business. Although the Government has brushed this claim aside, it does seem pretty obvious that a lot of RTA law firms will now disappear; this process has been ongoing for some time and will now accelerate rapidly. Even those lawyers with strong relationships with legal expenses insurers may find that the insurers now choose to run the cases in house without having to go through the bother of setting up an ABS law firm, as of course you don’t need to be a lawyer to run a case in the Small Claims Court. However, claimant lawyers have learnt to be adaptable over the years and new business models will also emerge, although whether they will prove sustainable remains to be seen. Given that non-RTA claims remain attractive work, we can expect a surge in these as new types of claim are mined by claims management companies (according to ABTA, there has been a ‘dramatic increase’ in holiday sickness claims, for example). What should Brokers Do Now? October 2018 may seem a long way off, but in reality legal expenses providers will want to renegotiate terms on MLEI deals within the next six months in order to avoid having live unexpired risks after October 2018 which have been priced according to the current costs regime. Therefore, in order to avoid having to simply accept whatever pricing changes are imposed by a current provider, brokers should start looking at market offers as soon as possible in order to enable future income planning. MLEI providers which have planned ahead for the new regime will be able to offer brokers transitional deals from October this year which lead into long term pricing structures from October 2018 onwards, so the message to brokers is: start planning ahead now and don’t be caught out. Motor Legal Protection Plus cover from Legal Protection Group provides up to £100,000 of legal costs cover for accident and injury claims, contract disputes, defence of prosecutions and vehicle cloning and MIB problems. We are ready to provide transitional pricing structures ahead of the enactment of the new law and a very competitive pricing structure in the longer term. To find out more, please contact Andy Westall, Sales Director, or Martin Bex, Sales Manager on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
The Government has now confirmed that the reforms to the personal injury claims regime will come into effect on 1st October 2018 when the Prisons & Courts Act becomes law. The key changes are: The Small Claims limit for all road traffic accident matters will increase from £1,000 to £5,000. The Small Claims limit for non-RTA cases will increase from £1,000 to £2,000. A new damages tariff for most RTA soft tissue injuries (whiplash) will be introduced. Offers to settle claims before a medical report is obtained will be banned.   Prior to the publication of the Prisons & Courts Bill, it was widely assumed that the Small Claims limit would be increased fairly quickly and that any tariff for whiplash claims might follow at a later date, so the Government’s decision to implement all of the changes in October next year will have come as a nasty shock to RTA personal injury lawyers. What do the changes mean? At present, RTA personal injury claimants who have not arranged legal protection insurance will most likely be directed to a law firm happy to run the case in return for a 25% contingency fee. The claimant will also be expected to arrange ATE cover which is likely to cost around £50 for portal cases. Currently, the average award for soft tissue injuries of 4 – 6 months duration is £2,150, so the cost to the claimant amounts to £587.50 including ATE cover, leaving a net award of £1,562.50. The claimant’s lawyer will, in addition to the deduction from damages, also recover fixed costs of at least £200 but more likely £500, so the lawyer’s total income normally amounts to just over £1,000. The increase in the Small Claims limit alone would have seen lawyers adjust their business model to take a higher contingency fee percentage, in order to compensate for the reduction in fixed recoverable costs. For example a 40% deduction from an average award still nets £860, plus some small recoverable costs. However, the killer blow for claimant RTA lawyers (and those injured in accidents) is the introduction of the whiplash tariff. The typical £2,150 paid out under the current system falls to just £450 under the tariff, so even a contingency fee of 40% still only produces an income of £180 which (most lawyers would say) is not enough to cover the cost of running the claim. In any event, it is doubtful that a typical claimant will be bothered to make a claim in the first place if their net award is likely to be as low as £270, especially as they will have to go through the process of being medically examined. It’s difficult to be precise at this stage, but it would be very surprising if the total number of RTA claims brought by those who do not have legal expenses insurance did not drop by at least 50 percent. Legal Expenses Insurance A significant number of motorists already purchase Motor Legal Expenses Insurance (MLEI) and this cover becomes even more necessary under the new regime. The reduction in typical damages of nearly 80 percent is bad enough for innocent victims but if this is also accompanied by a contingency fee deduction, then the whole situation becomes untenable. At least those with MLEI will keep 100 percent of what compensation is available and this should be a strong selling point for all motor insurance brokers or other retailers. Of course, brokers also enjoy a significant income stream from MLEI sales, with a typical commission of at least £25 per policy thanks to the very low net premium rates currently available in the market. Now that the extent of the personal injury changes are known, there will of course be a sharp upward movement in net premiums charged by MLEI providers, as they will no longer be able to get lawyers to handle injury claims free of charge and will in future have to pay the lawyer’s fees. Whereas today’s net premium might be less than £1.00, going forward this is likely to increase to £7.00 – £8.00, thus reducing the broker’s margin. However, we will probably begin to see brokers increasing the retail price of MLEI to make up for some of the increase; for example an increase from £30 to £35 is unlikely to have any significant impact on take-up rates and the increased need for cover will help maintain or improve sales levels. Motorcyclists The new whiplash tariff does not apply to motorcycle accidents. Therefore, motorcyclists will remain entitled to current levels of compensation, all the more reason why they need MLEI cover to avoid a large cash deduction by way of a contingency fee. Indeed, it is hard to see how the demands and needs of a motorcyclist are properly met if their motor insurance does not include legal expenses insurance cover. Unintended Consequences For non-RTA claims (EL, PL and so on) the new Small Claims limit is £2,000, up from £1,000. This will cause some claims inflation. Cases that currently settle for £1,500 will in future settle for just over £2,000, so good news for claimants and lawyers operating on a contingency fee, but bad news for insurers. Informed observers have suggested that the new RTA personal injury regime will result in tens of thousands of redundancies as personal injury lawyers close for business. Although the Government has brushed this claim aside, it does seem pretty obvious that a lot of RTA law firms will now disappear; this process has been ongoing for some time and will now accelerate rapidly. Even those lawyers with strong relationships with legal expenses insurers may find that the insurers now choose to run the cases in house without having to go through the bother of setting up an ABS law firm, as of course you don’t need to be a lawyer to run a case in the Small Claims Court. However, claimant lawyers have learnt to be adaptable over the years and new business models will also emerge, although whether they will prove sustainable remains to be seen. Given that non-RTA claims remain attractive work, we can expect a surge in these as new types of claim are mined by claims management companies (according to ABTA, there has been a ‘dramatic increase’ in holiday sickness claims, for example). What should Brokers Do Now? October 2018 may seem a long way off, but in reality legal expenses providers will want to renegotiate terms on MLEI deals within the next six months in order to avoid having live unexpired risks after October 2018 which have been priced according to the current costs regime. Therefore, in order to avoid having to simply accept whatever pricing changes are imposed by a current provider, brokers should start looking at market offers as soon as possible in order to enable future income planning. MLEI providers which have planned ahead for the new regime will be able to offer brokers transitional deals from October this year which lead into long term pricing structures from October 2018 onwards, so the message to brokers is: start planning ahead now and don’t be caught out. Motor Legal Protection Plus cover from Legal Protection Group provides up to £100,000 of legal costs cover for accident and injury claims, contract disputes, defence of prosecutions and vehicle cloning and MIB problems. We are ready to provide transitional pricing structures ahead of the enactment of the new law and a very competitive pricing structure in the longer term. To find out more, please contact Andy Westall, Sales Director, or Martin Bex, Sales Manager on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) is pleased to announce two new appointments in February.  Sheena Court joins as Marketing Manager and Julia Pomphrey as Office Manager. Joining from DAS UK Group, where she was Head of Customer & Marketing, Sheena will be responsible for setting up and developing marketing within the recently launched challenger MGA. Sheena has over 20 years’ experience in the marketing of financial services and was recently instrumental in the development of award winning customer insight and understanding initiatives for DAS UK Group.   Previously, Sheena held a number of senior marketing, market development and change management roles for Bank of Ireland, Bristol & West, Nationwide and Abbey National. Julia joins following a short career break to take up the important new role of Office Manager.   Previously Julia held a number of business development roles at Bank of Ireland and has 25 years’ experience in financial services. Julia’s new role is central to the development of Legal Protection Group and will focus on ensuring that excellent customer service and response times are maintained across the growing business. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “I am really pleased with the progress that we have made since we launched in October 2016 and these two new appointments will really help us to establish Legal Protection Group as a true challenger to the more established brands.”

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) is pleased to announce two new appointments in February.  Sheena Court joins as Marketing Manager and Julia Pomphrey as Office Manager. Joining from DAS UK Group, where she was Head of Customer & Marketing, Sheena will be responsible for setting up and developing marketing within the recently launched challenger MGA. Sheena has over 20 years’ experience in the marketing of financial services and was recently instrumental in the development of award winning customer insight and understanding initiatives for DAS UK Group.   Previously, Sheena held a number of senior marketing, market development and change management roles for Bank of Ireland, Bristol & West, Nationwide and Abbey National. Julia joins following a short career break to take up the important new role of Office Manager.   Previously Julia held a number of business development roles at Bank of Ireland and has 25 years’ experience in financial services. Julia’s new role is central to the development of Legal Protection Group and will focus on ensuring that excellent customer service and response times are maintained across the growing business. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “I am really pleased with the progress that we have made since we launched in October 2016 and these two new appointments will really help us to establish Legal Protection Group as a true challenger to the more established brands.”

by Sheena Court

Mon 26 Jun 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to be entering a new partnership with Tenant Farmers Association to provide legal expenses insurance for its members including cover for agricultural landlord tenant disputes. Andy Westall, Sales Director for Legal Protection Group, said “We are naturally delighted that the TFA has chosen Legal Protection Group to provide its members with specialist legal expenses protection. Our businesses share a real passion for providing the highest quality and most relevant policy covers to all members. Legal Protection Group will provide unrivalled levels of management and ongoing support for the TFA“. TFA Chief Executive George Dunn said “When the TFA launched its legal expenses insurance in 1999 with DAS, it was the first of its kind in combining the standard cover for legal disputes available with new cover for landlord and tenant disputes in the agricultural sector resolved through arbitration and tribunals. Over the last 18 years we have sought to develop the policy into an effective tool for farm tenants in managing disputes with their landlords. Whilst we have seen the emergence of other policies attempting to replicate the cover provided by the TFA, we still consider ours to be a Rolls-Royce policy.” “The move to the Legal Protection Group gives us the opportunity to extend coverage to include wider contract disputes at no additional cost to TFA members with the insurance. We are also able to streamline the administration particularly on claims handling. Overall we are envisaging a significant improvement in service levels to TFA members whilst continuing to provide high quality cover at a reasonable cost,” said Mr Dunn. “The costs of formal resolution of disputes arising from an agricultural tenancy rise all the time and are often much higher than the financial difference between the parties. Having insurance in place to cover these costs in the event that they arise is a must,” said Mr Dunn.

by Sheena Court

Wed 26 Jul 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to be entering a new partnership with Tenant Farmers Association to provide legal expenses insurance for its members including cover for agricultural landlord tenant disputes. Andy Westall, Sales Director for Legal Protection Group, said “We are naturally delighted that the TFA has chosen Legal Protection Group to provide its members with specialist legal expenses protection. Our businesses share a real passion for providing the highest quality and most relevant policy covers to all members. Legal Protection Group will provide unrivalled levels of management and ongoing support for the TFA“. TFA Chief Executive George Dunn said “When the TFA launched its legal expenses insurance in 1999 with DAS, it was the first of its kind in combining the standard cover for legal disputes available with new cover for landlord and tenant disputes in the agricultural sector resolved through arbitration and tribunals. Over the last 18 years we have sought to develop the policy into an effective tool for farm tenants in managing disputes with their landlords. Whilst we have seen the emergence of other policies attempting to replicate the cover provided by the TFA, we still consider ours to be a Rolls-Royce policy.” “The move to the Legal Protection Group gives us the opportunity to extend coverage to include wider contract disputes at no additional cost to TFA members with the insurance. We are also able to streamline the administration particularly on claims handling. Overall we are envisaging a significant improvement in service levels to TFA members whilst continuing to provide high quality cover at a reasonable cost,” said Mr Dunn. “The costs of formal resolution of disputes arising from an agricultural tenancy rise all the time and are often much higher than the financial difference between the parties. Having insurance in place to cover these costs in the event that they arise is a must,” said Mr Dunn.

by Sheena Court

Wed 26 Jul 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce Richard Whale has joined our team as Head of ATE Sales based out of the Bristol office. Richard has gained considerable experience in the market since starting his career in ATE insurance back in 2002 with Greystoke Legal Services before moving the LawAssist brand on to Litigation Protection and finally DAS where he was instrumental in the development of post LASPO ATE insurance products and helping solicitor business partners adapt to the Jackson reforms. Richard’s role at Legal Protection Group is to focus on special projects as well as to develop and service the already rapidly growing ATE insurance panel of solicitor firms by helping them understand the impact of the latest proposed government legal reforms, identifying their insurance and funding requirements and ensuring they have access to ‘best of breed’ products and high quality customer service to fully protect their clients. Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It is great news that Richard has joined our team at such an exciting time of our development, where he will be able to hit the floor running with many of his old colleagues in support. Richard’s knowledge of the ever evolving ATE marketplace will assist our partners navigate current and future legislation changes, and also help develop new market leading products and initiatives.” Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Richard’s knowledge and experience further strengthens our ATE team and I look forward to working with him on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months." You can contact Richard on:  Email: richard.whale@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk  Mobile: 07388 220 309  Direct Dial: 01179 726776

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Aug 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce Richard Whale has joined our team as Head of ATE Sales based out of the Bristol office. Richard has gained considerable experience in the market since starting his career in ATE insurance back in 2002 with Greystoke Legal Services before moving the LawAssist brand on to Litigation Protection and finally DAS where he was instrumental in the development of post LASPO ATE insurance products and helping solicitor business partners adapt to the Jackson reforms. Richard’s role at Legal Protection Group is to focus on special projects as well as to develop and service the already rapidly growing ATE insurance panel of solicitor firms by helping them understand the impact of the latest proposed government legal reforms, identifying their insurance and funding requirements and ensuring they have access to ‘best of breed’ products and high quality customer service to fully protect their clients. Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It is great news that Richard has joined our team at such an exciting time of our development, where he will be able to hit the floor running with many of his old colleagues in support. Richard’s knowledge of the ever evolving ATE marketplace will assist our partners navigate current and future legislation changes, and also help develop new market leading products and initiatives.” Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Richard’s knowledge and experience further strengthens our ATE team and I look forward to working with him on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months." You can contact Richard on:  Email: richard.whale@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk  Mobile: 07388 220 309  Direct Dial: 01179 726776

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Aug 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Dan Quinn has been appointed as ATE Underwriter. Dan is the latest addition to an already impressive team of experienced ATE professionals at Legal Protection Group and he will be based at our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from Elite Insurance, where he was also an ATE Underwriter, Dan has extensive experience dealing with commercial litigation, in particular, insolvency, defamation and professional negligence and clinical negligence. He was also specifically involved in producing diverse schemes ranging from Japanese Knotweed to Scottish clinical negligence cases. Dan has worked for Elite Insurance since 2011, but previously, Dan held various ATE and BTE roles at First Assist and Abbey Legal. Dan's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Dan will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Dan is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Dan said “It is an exciting time to be within the ATE market and, with Legal Protection Group’s reputation and expertise already in place, I believe that there are endless opportunities for us in the future.” Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, said “I am delighted that Dan has decided to join Legal Protection Group. I always admired his knowledge, experience and professionalism when he worked for Elite and he will be another great asset for our team”.   Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Dan has a strong background in ATE insurance, making him a valuable addition to the team. His appointment will ultimately help to support our growing London business. We welcome him to the Legal Protection Group team.” Dan takes up his role with immediate effect.   You can contact Dan on: Email: daniel.quinn@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk Mobile: 07879 524254  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Sep 17 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Dan Quinn has been appointed as ATE Underwriter. Dan is the latest addition to an already impressive team of experienced ATE professionals at Legal Protection Group and he will be based at our recently opened London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from Elite Insurance, where he was also an ATE Underwriter, Dan has extensive experience dealing with commercial litigation, in particular, insolvency, defamation and professional negligence and clinical negligence. He was also specifically involved in producing diverse schemes ranging from Japanese Knotweed to Scottish clinical negligence cases. Dan has worked for Elite Insurance since 2011, but previously, Dan held various ATE and BTE roles at First Assist and Abbey Legal. Dan's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Dan will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Dan is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Dan said “It is an exciting time to be within the ATE market and, with Legal Protection Group’s reputation and expertise already in place, I believe that there are endless opportunities for us in the future.” Commenting on the appointment, Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting, said “I am delighted that Dan has decided to join Legal Protection Group. I always admired his knowledge, experience and professionalism when he worked for Elite and he will be another great asset for our team”.   Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said "Dan has a strong background in ATE insurance, making him a valuable addition to the team. His appointment will ultimately help to support our growing London business. We welcome him to the Legal Protection Group team.” Dan takes up his role with immediate effect.   You can contact Dan on: Email: daniel.quinn@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk Mobile: 07879 524254  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Sep 17 | News
It is a year since we entered the legal expenses insurance market and, in that time, Legal Protection Group (LPG) has gone from strength to strength and has already secured an impressive £10m GWP in new business.   At every stage since our launch we have had the support of some tremendous business partners who saw real value in the experience, enthusiasm, speed and customer service that we bring to the legal expenses market.  We would like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to all who had faith and gave us support throughout our first trading year. This last year has been fantastic. We have built a great team and we are committed to being proactive and working with our business partners to deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward. To find out more about how we can help your business and clients, give us a call today.  We are happy to come and see you to understand your business needs and you never know, it might just be a real game changer for you.

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Oct 17 | News
It is a year since we entered the legal expenses insurance market and, in that time, Legal Protection Group (LPG) has gone from strength to strength and has already secured an impressive £10m GWP in new business.   At every stage since our launch we have had the support of some tremendous business partners who saw real value in the experience, enthusiasm, speed and customer service that we bring to the legal expenses market.  We would like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to all who had faith and gave us support throughout our first trading year. This last year has been fantastic. We have built a great team and we are committed to being proactive and working with our business partners to deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward. To find out more about how we can help your business and clients, give us a call today.  We are happy to come and see you to understand your business needs and you never know, it might just be a real game changer for you.

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Oct 17 | News
We are delighted to announce that Oli Foster has been appointed as Senior BTE Underwriter and will be operating from our head office in Bristol. Oli started his insurance career handling motor claims for Fortis, after which he worked as an insurance advisor, developing personal lines business for Endsleigh. This led to an underwriting role at DAS, where he worked for ten years, handling a variety of broker and specialist corporate legal expenses accounts. Oli is excited to join LPG, where he will work with the established BTE sales and underwriting teams to deliver Legal Protection Group’s broker products and propositions. Commenting on his appointment, Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “I am delighted that Oli has decided to join Legal Protection Group. Our BTE business has been expanding rapidly over the last year and we now need additional resource to support bespoke requests and new product development opportunities going forward.”   Oli takes up his role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Thu 09 Nov 17 | News
We are delighted to announce that Oli Foster has been appointed as Senior BTE Underwriter and will be operating from our head office in Bristol. Oli started his insurance career handling motor claims for Fortis, after which he worked as an insurance advisor, developing personal lines business for Endsleigh. This led to an underwriting role at DAS, where he worked for ten years, handling a variety of broker and specialist corporate legal expenses accounts. Oli is excited to join LPG, where he will work with the established BTE sales and underwriting teams to deliver Legal Protection Group’s broker products and propositions. Commenting on his appointment, Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “I am delighted that Oli has decided to join Legal Protection Group. Our BTE business has been expanding rapidly over the last year and we now need additional resource to support bespoke requests and new product development opportunities going forward.”   Oli takes up his role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Thu 09 Nov 17 | News
Like many of our competitors, we were disappointed to hear the surprising news that Elite Insurance Company has stopped writing new business. Since last week’s announcement, we have had a number of new enquiries via our website for both ATE and BTE business. We would like to confirm that we are available to quote for any new business enquiries.  For those of you who don’t already know our team, our contact details are as follows: ATE Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting – 0117 906 6435 or 07557 438 520 Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager – 020 711 80589 or 07342 997985 BTE Andy Westall, Sales Director – 0117 906 6450 or 07557 289 925 Martin Bex, Sales Manager – 0117 906 6441 or 07557 393 475   Alternatively, contact us via our switchboard – 0333 700 1040

by Sheena Court

Tue 18 Jul 17 | News
Like many of our competitors, we were disappointed to hear the surprising news that Elite Insurance Company has stopped writing new business. Since last week’s announcement, we have had a number of new enquiries via our website for both ATE and BTE business. We would like to confirm that we are available to quote for any new business enquiries.  For those of you who don’t already know our team, our contact details are as follows: ATE Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting – 0117 906 6435 or 07557 438 520 Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager – 020 711 80589 or 07342 997985 BTE Andy Westall, Sales Director – 0117 906 6450 or 07557 289 925 Martin Bex, Sales Manager – 0117 906 6441 or 07557 393 475   Alternatively, contact us via our switchboard – 0333 700 1040

by Sheena Court

Tue 18 Jul 17 | News
It is with great sadness that we announce that our Claims Manager, Simon Mayhew, died unexpectedly late last week.   Simon has worked for us since our launch last October and he will be sorely missed by all his colleagues and friends here at Legal Protection Group.   Simon will be remembered fondly by all for his professionalism and personality.        For ATE enquiries, please contact either Phil Bellamy or Steve Ruffle:   Phil Bellamy, Head of Underwriting Tel:    0117 906 6435 Mob:  07557 438 520 Email: phil.bellamy@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk   Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager Tel:    020 711 80589 Mob:  07342 997985 Email: steve.ruffle@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk   For BTE Claims enquiries, please contact Gary Kent:   Gary Kent, Underwriting Manager Tel:    0117 906 6434 Email: gary.kent@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk

by Sheena Court

Tue 29 Aug 17 | News
It is with great sadness that we announce that our Claims Manager, Simon Mayhew, died unexpectedly late last week.   Simon has worked for us since our launch last October and he will be sorely missed by all his colleagues and friends here at Legal Protection Group.   Simon will be remembered fondly by all for his professionalism and personality.        For ATE enquiries, please contact either Phil Bellamy or Steve Ruffle:   Phil Bellamy, Head of Underwriting Tel:    0117 906 6435 Mob:  07557 438 520 Email: phil.bellamy@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk   Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager Tel:    020 711 80589 Mob:  07342 997985 Email: steve.ruffle@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk   For BTE Claims enquiries, please contact Gary Kent:   Gary Kent, Underwriting Manager Tel:    0117 906 6434 Email: gary.kent@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk

by Sheena Court

Tue 29 Aug 17 | News
Following a successful first year trading, we are pleased to announce that we have appointed Clare Wright to the newly created role of Project Manager. Clare, who joins following a short career break, has exceptional previous experience in both legal expenses insurance and general insurance. Clare most recently held a number of account management, claims and operational roles at DAS and previously held account manager roles at Hill House Hammond and RSA. Clare will support the Senior Management Team in the delivery of a number of new strategic projects scheduled for delivery in 2018 and beyond. Clare is delighted to have been invited to join Legal Protection Group and she is looking forward to helping develop and shape the company going forward. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “Clare has joined the company at an exciting time for us.   Our launch has been well received by the market, we have an impressive team of established and experienced legal expenses professionals and we are now in a position to begin our expansion plans. Clare will be central to making this a reality and we welcome her to the Legal Protection Group team.” Clare takes up her role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Thu 23 Nov 17 | News
Following a successful first year trading, we are pleased to announce that we have appointed Clare Wright to the newly created role of Project Manager. Clare, who joins following a short career break, has exceptional previous experience in both legal expenses insurance and general insurance. Clare most recently held a number of account management, claims and operational roles at DAS and previously held account manager roles at Hill House Hammond and RSA. Clare will support the Senior Management Team in the delivery of a number of new strategic projects scheduled for delivery in 2018 and beyond. Clare is delighted to have been invited to join Legal Protection Group and she is looking forward to helping develop and shape the company going forward. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “Clare has joined the company at an exciting time for us.   Our launch has been well received by the market, we have an impressive team of established and experienced legal expenses professionals and we are now in a position to begin our expansion plans. Clare will be central to making this a reality and we welcome her to the Legal Protection Group team.” Clare takes up her role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Thu 23 Nov 17 | News
We are pleased to announce that we have appointed Julia Pomphrey to the newly created role of Business Development Executive for BTE. Julia has over 25 years of industry experience including a successful career as Corporate Sales Director at Bank of Ireland responsible for the relationship management of International Corporate partners and development of business within the Banking, Insurance and Financial Services sectors.   Julia joined us in February 2017 in the role of Office Manager and has spent the last year developing her understanding of Legal Expenses before moving into sales.   Julia will work closely with the existing BTE Sales Team of Andy Westall, Sales Director and Martin Bex, Sales Manager.   Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said ‘Following a very successful first year trading, we are now need to expand our BTE Sales Team to meet increasing demand. Julia has an impressive background in financial services and we are pleased that she has chosen to move into this important new role.’ Julia takes up her role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Thu 18 Jan 18 | News
We are pleased to announce that we have appointed Julia Pomphrey to the newly created role of Business Development Executive for BTE. Julia has over 25 years of industry experience including a successful career as Corporate Sales Director at Bank of Ireland responsible for the relationship management of International Corporate partners and development of business within the Banking, Insurance and Financial Services sectors.   Julia joined us in February 2017 in the role of Office Manager and has spent the last year developing her understanding of Legal Expenses before moving into sales.   Julia will work closely with the existing BTE Sales Team of Andy Westall, Sales Director and Martin Bex, Sales Manager.   Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said ‘Following a very successful first year trading, we are now need to expand our BTE Sales Team to meet increasing demand. Julia has an impressive background in financial services and we are pleased that she has chosen to move into this important new role.’ Julia takes up her role with immediate effect.

by Sheena Court

Thu 18 Jan 18 | News
The Dublin-based insurer, CBL Insurance Europe (CBLIE) has been instructed by the Central Bank of Ireland to cease writing business with immediate effect until further notice. Its parent company has been suspended from trading its share on two stock exchanges. CBL continues to operate and its existing policies remain in force. CBL, in an announcement made to the New Zealand stock exchange, said: "CBLIE has sought legal advice in Europe and has instructed its European legal counsel to request the Central Bank of Ireland to withdraw this direction. Failing this, CBLIE reserves it rights to take any measures necessary in order to protect its interests."  The Central Bank of Ireland has required CBLIE to write to all appointed insurance brokers and distribution partners to inform them of its directive. The Central Bank has also requested that all appointed brokers and distribution partners, with which CBLIE is connected, inform policyholders. Since having its shares suspended on the New Zealand Stock Exchange, CBL has requested its shares also be suspended on the Australian Stock Exchange, saying it is “still working towards a capital raise, but the timing as well as the proposed amount, has not been finalised.”

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Feb 18 | News
The Dublin-based insurer, CBL Insurance Europe (CBLIE) has been instructed by the Central Bank of Ireland to cease writing business with immediate effect until further notice. Its parent company has been suspended from trading its share on two stock exchanges. CBL continues to operate and its existing policies remain in force. CBL, in an announcement made to the New Zealand stock exchange, said: "CBLIE has sought legal advice in Europe and has instructed its European legal counsel to request the Central Bank of Ireland to withdraw this direction. Failing this, CBLIE reserves it rights to take any measures necessary in order to protect its interests."  The Central Bank of Ireland has required CBLIE to write to all appointed insurance brokers and distribution partners to inform them of its directive. The Central Bank has also requested that all appointed brokers and distribution partners, with which CBLIE is connected, inform policyholders. Since having its shares suspended on the New Zealand Stock Exchange, CBL has requested its shares also be suspended on the Australian Stock Exchange, saying it is “still working towards a capital raise, but the timing as well as the proposed amount, has not been finalised.”

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Feb 18 | News
Legal Protection Group is pleased to announce the appointment of Alistair Stewart as Non-Executive Director. Alistair is a commercial litigation solicitor specialising in insurance and professional disputes. A former partner at Lyons Davidson and founding partner at Loney Stewart Holland, Alistair is also a current Director of Eldon Insurance Services Limited.   Commenting on his appointment Alistair said, “I am delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group at such an exciting time for the business. Following a very successful first year trading and, with an excellent team in place, the business is now well placed to become a significant presence in the legal protection market. I look forward to supporting their impressive plans over the coming months and years.” Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “I am pleased that Alistair has chosen to join our Board. He brings with him many years’ experience working with and advising legal expenses insurers. In addition to his litigation work, Alistair has been regularly consulted by major insurers on project work such as changes to policy terms, impact of legal changes and claims policies & procedures. He has also acted for insurers in pioneering litigation which has had a major impact on the landscape of the sector. His appointment further enhances the Legal Protection Group Board of Directors.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 28 Feb 18 | News
Legal Protection Group is pleased to announce the appointment of Alistair Stewart as Non-Executive Director. Alistair is a commercial litigation solicitor specialising in insurance and professional disputes. A former partner at Lyons Davidson and founding partner at Loney Stewart Holland, Alistair is also a current Director of Eldon Insurance Services Limited.   Commenting on his appointment Alistair said, “I am delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group at such an exciting time for the business. Following a very successful first year trading and, with an excellent team in place, the business is now well placed to become a significant presence in the legal protection market. I look forward to supporting their impressive plans over the coming months and years.” Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “I am pleased that Alistair has chosen to join our Board. He brings with him many years’ experience working with and advising legal expenses insurers. In addition to his litigation work, Alistair has been regularly consulted by major insurers on project work such as changes to policy terms, impact of legal changes and claims policies & procedures. He has also acted for insurers in pioneering litigation which has had a major impact on the landscape of the sector. His appointment further enhances the Legal Protection Group Board of Directors.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 28 Feb 18 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Rob Horner has been appointed as ATE Underwriter and will be working alongside Steve Ruffle and Dan Quinn in our London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from DAS where he was also an ATE underwriter, Rob has gained experience of insuring a wide range of cases including insolvency, defamation and professional negligence disputes. More recently Rob has been closely involved in several competition law cases. Rob has a strong legal background, following completion of his LLB at Coventry University he spent some time working for a leading Midlands Law Practice. Subsequently Rob completed the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) in London and was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 2015. Rob's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to further establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Rob will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Rob is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Rob said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It’s great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert choose Legal Protection Group. Rob has a great understanding of the needs of our brokers, law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance. He will be a great asset to our growing business”.     You can contact Rob on: Email: robert.horner@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk Mobile: 07494 451841

by Sheena Court

Tue 10 Apr 18 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to announce that Rob Horner has been appointed as ATE Underwriter and will be working alongside Steve Ruffle and Dan Quinn in our London office in Fenchurch Street. Joining from DAS where he was also an ATE underwriter, Rob has gained experience of insuring a wide range of cases including insolvency, defamation and professional negligence disputes. More recently Rob has been closely involved in several competition law cases. Rob has a strong legal background, following completion of his LLB at Coventry University he spent some time working for a leading Midlands Law Practice. Subsequently Rob completed the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) in London and was called to the Bar at Lincoln’s Inn in 2015. Rob's role at Legal Protection Group is to support the ever expanding broker accounts whilst helping to further establish our London office. This will entail risk assessing ATE cases with regards to their suitability, whilst at the same time providing the highest level of customer service to our clients.   Rob will report to Steve Ruffle, ATE Underwriting Manager, who manages the London branch of Legal Protection Group.   Rob is delighted to be joining Legal Protection Group as an established and ambitious legal expenses provider and to help continue the company’s successful growth within the ATE sector. Commenting on his appointment, Rob said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Phil Bellamy Director of Underwriting said “It’s great to see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert choose Legal Protection Group. Rob has a great understanding of the needs of our brokers, law firms and their customers when it comes to ATE insurance. He will be a great asset to our growing business”.     You can contact Rob on: Email: robert.horner@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk Mobile: 07494 451841

by Sheena Court

Tue 10 Apr 18 | News
Whilst up in my loft recently repairing some “beast from the East” storm damage, I stumbled upon an old article I had written entitled A New Beginning, which attempted to make some predictions about how a post Jackson reforms world may look. Five years on, and with Lord Justice Jackson now retired, I thought it may be interesting to review the predictions versus reality.Regrettably, the first trend noted post Jackson of personal injury law firms closing is certainly still an ongoing topic. One only has to google “PI law firm closing” to see the terrible damage done to businesses and individuals alike. Law firm consolidation has also continued apace, and whilst good news for those who keep their jobs, it does not guarantee success going forward as a number of mergers have ended in disaster. I didn’t mention ATE insurers closing in the original article, but it’s certainly worth noting that at least four providers have now been put into run off, in the recent past. The initial strong take up of the “standard” PI (RTA and EL) ATE insurance noted has continued, albeit with appropriately lower premiums, some as low as £35 compared to £350 for the same case type pre LASPO. The structure of the overall PI ATE market has changed somewhat, with many cases now being insured via PCC’s (Protected Cell Captives) and not directly with the traditional ATE market. However, the changes due in April 2019 will all but kill the RTA ATE insurance market, and significantly reduce the non-motor pool of risks going forward, so the initial strong take up post Jackson will have run its course by next year, leading to another reduction in work for both law firms and insurers. "It is clear that Clinical Negligence is going to be a more significant part of an ATE insurer’s book going forward' is what I said back in 2013, and there is absolutely no doubt about it, it is. Post LASPO, the average ATE insurer, or ATE MGA’s book of business has been dominated by clinical negligence cases, accounting for circa 80% of written premium.All well and good, except for the fact that the so-called partial ATE premium recovery exemption allowed for this class of claim, has in hindsight, been an unmitigated and total failure. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the exemption proposition were, the fact is, ATE insurers have been, and still are, significantly underwater post Jackson on clinical negligence business. There are a number of reasons for this poor performance that have been previously well documented, and do not need rehearsing again here.Of course, nobody will give two hoots about ATE insurers losing money on clinical negligence business, but historically, insurers were needed both pre and post Jackson to prosecute these cases due to the very high costs involved. This situation may or may not change next year with the proposed new fixed fees being introduced in early 2019, but I imagine some sort of ATE insurance support will still be required in the future, although there has been no mention of it in any FRC proposals so far. Let’s hope they abolish the partial recovery exemption so we all know where we stand with recovering the ATE premium. Finally, I did suggest in my closing paragraph that the reforms had led to a reduction in access to justice for SME’s with small to mid-sized commercial disputes, and that would-be claimants seeking damages of less than £50,000 were likely to be rejected on a financial viability basis, despite having a great case in law.I must confess on this item I was wrong. Post Jackson experience now confirms that even a £50,000 claim is not large enough to make the litigation financials work for such disputes. They really do need to be at the £100,000 level at least for law firms and insurers to even consider taking on a CFA/DBA/ATE basis. This is certainly an area where pre-paid BTE legal expenses insurance would be well worth the investment. By Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Apr 18 | News
Whilst up in my loft recently repairing some “beast from the East” storm damage, I stumbled upon an old article I had written entitled A New Beginning, which attempted to make some predictions about how a post Jackson reforms world may look. Five years on, and with Lord Justice Jackson now retired, I thought it may be interesting to review the predictions versus reality.Regrettably, the first trend noted post Jackson of personal injury law firms closing is certainly still an ongoing topic. One only has to google “PI law firm closing” to see the terrible damage done to businesses and individuals alike. Law firm consolidation has also continued apace, and whilst good news for those who keep their jobs, it does not guarantee success going forward as a number of mergers have ended in disaster. I didn’t mention ATE insurers closing in the original article, but it’s certainly worth noting that at least four providers have now been put into run off, in the recent past. The initial strong take up of the “standard” PI (RTA and EL) ATE insurance noted has continued, albeit with appropriately lower premiums, some as low as £35 compared to £350 for the same case type pre LASPO. The structure of the overall PI ATE market has changed somewhat, with many cases now being insured via PCC’s (Protected Cell Captives) and not directly with the traditional ATE market. However, the changes due in April 2019 will all but kill the RTA ATE insurance market, and significantly reduce the non-motor pool of risks going forward, so the initial strong take up post Jackson will have run its course by next year, leading to another reduction in work for both law firms and insurers. "It is clear that Clinical Negligence is going to be a more significant part of an ATE insurer’s book going forward' is what I said back in 2013, and there is absolutely no doubt about it, it is. Post LASPO, the average ATE insurer, or ATE MGA’s book of business has been dominated by clinical negligence cases, accounting for circa 80% of written premium.All well and good, except for the fact that the so-called partial ATE premium recovery exemption allowed for this class of claim, has in hindsight, been an unmitigated and total failure. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the exemption proposition were, the fact is, ATE insurers have been, and still are, significantly underwater post Jackson on clinical negligence business. There are a number of reasons for this poor performance that have been previously well documented, and do not need rehearsing again here.Of course, nobody will give two hoots about ATE insurers losing money on clinical negligence business, but historically, insurers were needed both pre and post Jackson to prosecute these cases due to the very high costs involved. This situation may or may not change next year with the proposed new fixed fees being introduced in early 2019, but I imagine some sort of ATE insurance support will still be required in the future, although there has been no mention of it in any FRC proposals so far. Let’s hope they abolish the partial recovery exemption so we all know where we stand with recovering the ATE premium. Finally, I did suggest in my closing paragraph that the reforms had led to a reduction in access to justice for SME’s with small to mid-sized commercial disputes, and that would-be claimants seeking damages of less than £50,000 were likely to be rejected on a financial viability basis, despite having a great case in law.I must confess on this item I was wrong. Post Jackson experience now confirms that even a £50,000 claim is not large enough to make the litigation financials work for such disputes. They really do need to be at the £100,000 level at least for law firms and insurers to even consider taking on a CFA/DBA/ATE basis. This is certainly an area where pre-paid BTE legal expenses insurance would be well worth the investment. By Phil Bellamy, Director of Underwriting

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Apr 18 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to have secured a new long term Partnership arrangement with Wesleyan General Insurance.    Andy Westall, Sales Director for Legal Protection Group said, we are naturally thrilled that Wesleyan has chosen Legal Protection Group to provide its customers with a market leading product and service. Wesleyan without doubt share our vision and passion for providing quality throughout without any compromise. Wesleyan’s Head of Business Development, Mark Lee commented, “we have been genuinely delighted with the quality of management support from Legal Protection Group and in particular the ability to understand our requirements and specific customer demands. We have been particularly impressed with the speed of implementation and ability to engage with decision makers.”  

by Sheena Court

Tue 22 May 18 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to have secured a new long term Partnership arrangement with Wesleyan General Insurance.    Andy Westall, Sales Director for Legal Protection Group said, we are naturally thrilled that Wesleyan has chosen Legal Protection Group to provide its customers with a market leading product and service. Wesleyan without doubt share our vision and passion for providing quality throughout without any compromise. Wesleyan’s Head of Business Development, Mark Lee commented, “we have been genuinely delighted with the quality of management support from Legal Protection Group and in particular the ability to understand our requirements and specific customer demands. We have been particularly impressed with the speed of implementation and ability to engage with decision makers.”  

by Sheena Court

Tue 22 May 18 | News
We are now seeking a Claims Manager to join our team. Based in Lysander House, Cribbs Causeway, the applicant should have experience of dealing with legal expenses claims, ideally both BTE and ATE, and have worked in a similar LEI claims environment. Your role will involve assessing and validating LEI claims, procuring and managing our service providers, including solicitors, costs lawyers and home emergency providers. You will also assist sales and underwriting with tender presentations, and meet business partners to discuss our service provision. We expect a very high level of customer service for all our clients, and you should also work well as part of a team meeting our business objectives. You will demonstrate a detailed understanding of legal expenses insurance claims handling. Although the role is office based in Bristol, there will be an element of travelling involved to meet new and existing customers and business partners. Salary & Benefits: Competitive package depending on experience. If you are interested in finding out more about this exciting opportunity, please email your CV to phil.bellamy@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk  

by Sheena Court

Tue 29 May 18 | News
We are now seeking a Claims Manager to join our team. Based in Lysander House, Cribbs Causeway, the applicant should have experience of dealing with legal expenses claims, ideally both BTE and ATE, and have worked in a similar LEI claims environment. Your role will involve assessing and validating LEI claims, procuring and managing our service providers, including solicitors, costs lawyers and home emergency providers. You will also assist sales and underwriting with tender presentations, and meet business partners to discuss our service provision. We expect a very high level of customer service for all our clients, and you should also work well as part of a team meeting our business objectives. You will demonstrate a detailed understanding of legal expenses insurance claims handling. Although the role is office based in Bristol, there will be an element of travelling involved to meet new and existing customers and business partners. Salary & Benefits: Competitive package depending on experience. If you are interested in finding out more about this exciting opportunity, please email your CV to phil.bellamy@legalprotectiongroup.co.uk  

by Sheena Court

Tue 29 May 18 | News
Legal Protection Group, the specialist Legal Protection Insurance MGA, has launched in Ireland as a joint venture between Legal Protection Group UK and the senior team behind the wholesale division of O’Driscoll O’Neil DAC. Legal Protection Group was formed by a group of well-known legal protection insurance professionals, who shared a vision of how a legal protection company can and should operate. Having launched successfully in the UK in October 2016, the group has partnered with O’Driscoll O’Neil to now bring the benefits of this fresh approach to the Irish market. Commenting on the launch of Legal Protection Group Ireland, Legal Protection Group’s Managing Director Martin Rowan said, “There is a huge opportunity for growth within the Irish Legal Protection market and our objective is to help brokers realise this untapped potential. Until now, there has effectively been only one insurer operating in this sector, but now there is a choice of provider and our research shows very clearly that this new choice will be warmly welcomed by the market.” Working closely with the senior team at O’Driscoll O’Neil, the new products have been designed and developed specifically for the Irish market. We believe that our policies are more flexible and bespoke than perhaps you or your clients are used to. The updated and enhanced covers are underwritten by Inter Hannover, with an AA- security rating, and supported by local claims-handling and telephone legal advice services. In designing our product range, we have listened carefully to the market and we have already successfully started operations in Ireland through a quiet soft-launch at the beginning of January The Legal Protection Group Ireland products include:   - Commercial Legal Protection; - Group and Affinity Protection; - Family Legal Protection; and - Motor Legal Protection.   Legal Protection Group Ireland is also launching a Commercial & Civil Litigation Policy, which provides cover of up to €2.0 million against the risk of an adverse costs award in an unsuccessful legal action. Cover is available from today and we’re sure you will be pleased with the choice, flexibility and the price we can offer. Niall O’Driscoll, Managing Director of O’Driscoll O’Neil, said “We are excited to be able to offer choice to the consumer in a market where it is has been lacking thus far. Legal Protection Group are the ideal partner for us and we look forward to working with them for many years.” To learn more about Legal Protection Group Ireland, please visit our website at www.legalprotectiongroup.ie   Or contact us: Legal Protection Group Ireland Tel: 01 6395844 Email: enquiries@legalprotectiongroup.ie  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Jun 18 | News
Legal Protection Group, the specialist Legal Protection Insurance MGA, has launched in Ireland as a joint venture between Legal Protection Group UK and the senior team behind the wholesale division of O’Driscoll O’Neil DAC. Legal Protection Group was formed by a group of well-known legal protection insurance professionals, who shared a vision of how a legal protection company can and should operate. Having launched successfully in the UK in October 2016, the group has partnered with O’Driscoll O’Neil to now bring the benefits of this fresh approach to the Irish market. Commenting on the launch of Legal Protection Group Ireland, Legal Protection Group’s Managing Director Martin Rowan said, “There is a huge opportunity for growth within the Irish Legal Protection market and our objective is to help brokers realise this untapped potential. Until now, there has effectively been only one insurer operating in this sector, but now there is a choice of provider and our research shows very clearly that this new choice will be warmly welcomed by the market.” Working closely with the senior team at O’Driscoll O’Neil, the new products have been designed and developed specifically for the Irish market. We believe that our policies are more flexible and bespoke than perhaps you or your clients are used to. The updated and enhanced covers are underwritten by Inter Hannover, with an AA- security rating, and supported by local claims-handling and telephone legal advice services. In designing our product range, we have listened carefully to the market and we have already successfully started operations in Ireland through a quiet soft-launch at the beginning of January The Legal Protection Group Ireland products include:   - Commercial Legal Protection; - Group and Affinity Protection; - Family Legal Protection; and - Motor Legal Protection.   Legal Protection Group Ireland is also launching a Commercial & Civil Litigation Policy, which provides cover of up to €2.0 million against the risk of an adverse costs award in an unsuccessful legal action. Cover is available from today and we’re sure you will be pleased with the choice, flexibility and the price we can offer. Niall O’Driscoll, Managing Director of O’Driscoll O’Neil, said “We are excited to be able to offer choice to the consumer in a market where it is has been lacking thus far. Legal Protection Group are the ideal partner for us and we look forward to working with them for many years.” To learn more about Legal Protection Group Ireland, please visit our website at www.legalprotectiongroup.ie   Or contact us: Legal Protection Group Ireland Tel: 01 6395844 Email: enquiries@legalprotectiongroup.ie  

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Jun 18 | News
We are pleased to announce two new appointments. Andrew Lear joins as Claims Manager and Lucy Durbin as Senior Office Administrator. Andrew has been a qualified Solicitor since 2000 and achieved Diploma CII in 2004. He brings a wealth of experience from both the legal expenses insurance and legal services industries where he has been working for 25 years. Andrew has previously been a Claims Manager at two leading legal expenses insurers and also a Director and senior manager at two Bristol law firms. Lucy brings significant experience in legal expenses insurance, both After-the-Event (ATE) and Before-the-Event (BTE), and also previously worked in Motor Insurance. With over 10 years’ of insurance experience in total, Lucy has been involved in claims handling, claims management, day-to-day account management and sales support. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “We are delighted to welcome two very experienced industry professionals to our team. We are committed to delivering excellent service to our brokers and the knowledge and experience that both Andrew and Lucy bring will help ensure that we can deliver on our promises.”

by Sheena Court

Thu 27 Sep 18 | News
We are pleased to announce two new appointments. Andrew Lear joins as Claims Manager and Lucy Durbin as Senior Office Administrator. Andrew has been a qualified Solicitor since 2000 and achieved Diploma CII in 2004. He brings a wealth of experience from both the legal expenses insurance and legal services industries where he has been working for 25 years. Andrew has previously been a Claims Manager at two leading legal expenses insurers and also a Director and senior manager at two Bristol law firms. Lucy brings significant experience in legal expenses insurance, both After-the-Event (ATE) and Before-the-Event (BTE), and also previously worked in Motor Insurance. With over 10 years’ of insurance experience in total, Lucy has been involved in claims handling, claims management, day-to-day account management and sales support. Martin Rowan, MD of Legal Protection Group, said “We are delighted to welcome two very experienced industry professionals to our team. We are committed to delivering excellent service to our brokers and the knowledge and experience that both Andrew and Lucy bring will help ensure that we can deliver on our promises.”

by Sheena Court

Thu 27 Sep 18 | News
As the days draw in and the twilight deepens, LPG is on hand to brighten your working day with the latest edition of our ever popular #ATEMatters.  This month, our good friend Professor David Chalk, enlightens us with his pick of the top recent judgments and decision affecting the world of litigation.  This month we focus in on Vicarious liability, ownership of documents, budget sanctions and, last but certainly not least, how a Deed of Indemnity can be used to defeat a Security for Costs Application.  Please do get in contact on 0333 700 1040 if you would like to know more about the LPG Deed which has already been proven in Court. Read the November editon.  

by Sheena Court

Tue 06 Nov 18 | News
As the days draw in and the twilight deepens, LPG is on hand to brighten your working day with the latest edition of our ever popular #ATEMatters.  This month, our good friend Professor David Chalk, enlightens us with his pick of the top recent judgments and decision affecting the world of litigation.  This month we focus in on Vicarious liability, ownership of documents, budget sanctions and, last but certainly not least, how a Deed of Indemnity can be used to defeat a Security for Costs Application.  Please do get in contact on 0333 700 1040 if you would like to know more about the LPG Deed which has already been proven in Court. Read the November editon.  

by Sheena Court

Tue 06 Nov 18 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) is pleased to announce the appointment of Andy Parkinson in the newly created role of Broker Business Manager. Andy’s 28 years’ experience in the Legal Expenses and assistance market includes several years as Head of Corporate Partnerships at DAS where he was responsible for leading a key sales division promoting legal expenses insurance and assistance services to major insurer, broker, affinity & banking partners throughout the UK. Andy is delighted to return to the legal expenses market with Legal Protection Group, having taken time away to set up his own business away from the insurance world. Commenting on his appointment, Andy said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Andy Westall, Sales Director of Legal Protection Group, said “It’s fantastic to be working with Andy again and see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert choose Legal Protection Group.  Andy has a deep understanding of our industry and will be a real asset to our exciting growth and development plans.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Nov 18 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) is pleased to announce the appointment of Andy Parkinson in the newly created role of Broker Business Manager. Andy’s 28 years’ experience in the Legal Expenses and assistance market includes several years as Head of Corporate Partnerships at DAS where he was responsible for leading a key sales division promoting legal expenses insurance and assistance services to major insurer, broker, affinity & banking partners throughout the UK. Andy is delighted to return to the legal expenses market with Legal Protection Group, having taken time away to set up his own business away from the insurance world. Commenting on his appointment, Andy said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Andy Westall, Sales Director of Legal Protection Group, said “It’s fantastic to be working with Andy again and see another experienced and talented legal expenses expert choose Legal Protection Group.  Andy has a deep understanding of our industry and will be a real asset to our exciting growth and development plans.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Nov 18 | News
It is that time of year again.  The Christmas Tree is up, the party season has begun and the December edition of #ATEMatters is out!  This month we consider key judgments across a range of litigation areas including gems such as a solicitor’s retainer, the ever present Part 36 minefield and two decisions your injury colleagues will be interested in.  Read the December edition.   Merry Christmas from all at www.legalprotectiongroup.co.uk  

by Sheena Court

Wed 05 Dec 18 | News
It is that time of year again.  The Christmas Tree is up, the party season has begun and the December edition of #ATEMatters is out!  This month we consider key judgments across a range of litigation areas including gems such as a solicitor’s retainer, the ever present Part 36 minefield and two decisions your injury colleagues will be interested in.  Read the December edition.   Merry Christmas from all at www.legalprotectiongroup.co.uk  

by Sheena Court

Wed 05 Dec 18 | News
We are pleased to announce the appointment of April Keefe-Doherty as Claims Manager. April comes from a legal background. After training with and working for a top 500 law firm in London and Bristol she qualified as a Solicitor in 2007. April started her legal career in regulatory and compliance carrying out work on behalf of The Law Society of England and Wales. However she has spent the majority of her time since qualification specialising in employment law.   Prior to joining Legal Protection Group, April held the position of Senior Associate with a law firm working with and advising legal expenses insurers with an emphasis towards BTE business. She brings a wealth of experience from both the legal expenses insurance and legal services industries where she has been working for 15 years. April is delighted to have joined LPG in her new role as Claims Manager working alongside Andrew Lear. Martin Rowan, Managing Director of Legal Protection Group, said “It’s great to welcome another experienced and talented legal expenses expert to Legal Protection Group.  Our current focus is to ensure that we have the right people in place to support our expansions plans for 2019 and beyond.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 12 Dec 18 | News
We are pleased to announce the appointment of April Keefe-Doherty as Claims Manager. April comes from a legal background. After training with and working for a top 500 law firm in London and Bristol she qualified as a Solicitor in 2007. April started her legal career in regulatory and compliance carrying out work on behalf of The Law Society of England and Wales. However she has spent the majority of her time since qualification specialising in employment law.   Prior to joining Legal Protection Group, April held the position of Senior Associate with a law firm working with and advising legal expenses insurers with an emphasis towards BTE business. She brings a wealth of experience from both the legal expenses insurance and legal services industries where she has been working for 15 years. April is delighted to have joined LPG in her new role as Claims Manager working alongside Andrew Lear. Martin Rowan, Managing Director of Legal Protection Group, said “It’s great to welcome another experienced and talented legal expenses expert to Legal Protection Group.  Our current focus is to ensure that we have the right people in place to support our expansions plans for 2019 and beyond.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 12 Dec 18 | News
A must read version of ATEMatters with a review of 2018 and a look forward to 2019. To kick-start 2019, our first edition of #ATEMatters will give you a refresher on some of the key judgments and legal updates from the previous twelve months specifically focusing on those relating to CFAs and Part 36 which were hot topics in 2018. In this month’s edition we also give you a heads-up on key developments to look out for this year including new rules regarding Defamation, Business & Property claims and a new pilot scheme for capped costs. Remember all our previous #ATEMatters monthly newsletters are still available on our websiteso be sure to check back regularly to ensure you don’t miss anything. ATEMatters January 2019

by Sheena Court

Thu 17 Jan 19 | News
A must read version of ATEMatters with a review of 2018 and a look forward to 2019. To kick-start 2019, our first edition of #ATEMatters will give you a refresher on some of the key judgments and legal updates from the previous twelve months specifically focusing on those relating to CFAs and Part 36 which were hot topics in 2018. In this month’s edition we also give you a heads-up on key developments to look out for this year including new rules regarding Defamation, Business & Property claims and a new pilot scheme for capped costs. Remember all our previous #ATEMatters monthly newsletters are still available on our websiteso be sure to check back regularly to ensure you don’t miss anything. ATEMatters January 2019

by Sheena Court

Thu 17 Jan 19 | News
The weather may be dull but once again we are pleased to forward you the latest edition of ATE Matters to brighten up your day.  This month we revisit some old friends including the ubiquitous Part 36 judgment and the ‘sticky’ issue of CFA transfers.  All things costs are high on the agenda again and we have more detail on the capped costs pilot running for commercial claims. ATEMatters February Issue

by Sheena Court

Thu 07 Feb 19 | News
The weather may be dull but once again we are pleased to forward you the latest edition of ATE Matters to brighten up your day.  This month we revisit some old friends including the ubiquitous Part 36 judgment and the ‘sticky’ issue of CFA transfers.  All things costs are high on the agenda again and we have more detail on the capped costs pilot running for commercial claims. ATEMatters February Issue

by Sheena Court

Thu 07 Feb 19 | News
As we spring into March, welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  Contract and Professional Negligence judgments are first to bloom this month including a very interesting case relating to a claimant failing to prove what they would have done had there been no negligence. Inevitably we could not leave off  a quick mention of the MoJ’s LASPO review and there is a link to the full report for those who wish for some ‘light’ bedtime reading. ATEMatters March 2019

by Sheena Court

Tue 05 Mar 19 | News
As we spring into March, welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  Contract and Professional Negligence judgments are first to bloom this month including a very interesting case relating to a claimant failing to prove what they would have done had there been no negligence. Inevitably we could not leave off  a quick mention of the MoJ’s LASPO review and there is a link to the full report for those who wish for some ‘light’ bedtime reading. ATEMatters March 2019

by Sheena Court

Tue 05 Mar 19 | News
The wonderful spring sunshine may have left us temporarily but to brighten your day we have the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  As always our esteemed colleague, Professor David Chalk, has given us the benefit of his views on all the latest judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation. This month we start things off with an interesting case looking at alleged fraud and the setting aside of a trial outcome followed by a judgment by Sir Rupert Jackson himself involving a contract dispute.  For those of you involved with CFA work, the decision on Butler v Bankside is worth noting and we round things off with a couple of cases from the world of clinical negligence litigation which some of your colleagues may be interested in As always we hope you enjoy this edition of ATEMatters and we always welcome your thoughts and feedback. ATEMatters April 2019    

by Sheena Court

Tue 02 Apr 19 | News
The wonderful spring sunshine may have left us temporarily but to brighten your day we have the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  As always our esteemed colleague, Professor David Chalk, has given us the benefit of his views on all the latest judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation. This month we start things off with an interesting case looking at alleged fraud and the setting aside of a trial outcome followed by a judgment by Sir Rupert Jackson himself involving a contract dispute.  For those of you involved with CFA work, the decision on Butler v Bankside is worth noting and we round things off with a couple of cases from the world of clinical negligence litigation which some of your colleagues may be interested in As always we hope you enjoy this edition of ATEMatters and we always welcome your thoughts and feedback. ATEMatters April 2019    

by Sheena Court

Tue 02 Apr 19 | News
We are pleased to present the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group containing Professor David Chalk’s views on the latest key case decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation.  This month, a case relating to Norwich Pharmacal orders takes centre stage.  The latest decision in the long running Plevin case is certainly worth a read as are three Part 36 judgments which are making up the support act for this edition. So if the weather where you are is a little on the gloomy side, grab a coffee and let ATEMatters brighten your day. As always we welcome your feedback as well as any ideas you may have for future topics for us to cover. June edition

by Sheena Court

Tue 11 Jun 19 | News
We are pleased to present the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group containing Professor David Chalk’s views on the latest key case decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation.  This month, a case relating to Norwich Pharmacal orders takes centre stage.  The latest decision in the long running Plevin case is certainly worth a read as are three Part 36 judgments which are making up the support act for this edition. So if the weather where you are is a little on the gloomy side, grab a coffee and let ATEMatters brighten your day. As always we welcome your feedback as well as any ideas you may have for future topics for us to cover. June edition

by Sheena Court

Tue 11 Jun 19 | News
The summer is here, the sun is shining and to brighten up your day further, we are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month, our friend Professor David Chalk, gives us his views on a smorgasbord of key topics affecting the legal community including a delicious judgment relating to a doubtful defence.  Other delicacies in this edition include the ubiquitous Part 36 decision, costs judgments and the ongoing elephant in the room that is switching from Legal Aid to CFA which I’m sure your injury colleagues will find of interest. As always we welcome your feedback so please do get in touch to let us know your thoughts on ATEMatters. ATEMatters July 2019

by Sheena Court

Thu 04 Jul 19 | News
The summer is here, the sun is shining and to brighten up your day further, we are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month, our friend Professor David Chalk, gives us his views on a smorgasbord of key topics affecting the legal community including a delicious judgment relating to a doubtful defence.  Other delicacies in this edition include the ubiquitous Part 36 decision, costs judgments and the ongoing elephant in the room that is switching from Legal Aid to CFA which I’m sure your injury colleagues will find of interest. As always we welcome your feedback so please do get in touch to let us know your thoughts on ATEMatters. ATEMatters July 2019

by Sheena Court

Thu 04 Jul 19 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group and hopefully something to help take your mind off of the first Ashes Test result.  The granting of a security for costs order is our headline this month followed by an interesting judgment revolving around the entitlement of an agent to commission. A couple of cases which your injury litigation colleagues may be interested in especially the long awaited judgment on the conjoined cases of Demouilpied & West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust which could have had a huge impact on the ATE industry if there had not been a sensible decision.  Finally this month we finish on another ‘hot’ topic i.e. the validity of moving a case from Legal Aid to a CFA. ATEMatters August 2019

by Sheena Court

Tue 06 Aug 19 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group and hopefully something to help take your mind off of the first Ashes Test result.  The granting of a security for costs order is our headline this month followed by an interesting judgment revolving around the entitlement of an agent to commission. A couple of cases which your injury litigation colleagues may be interested in especially the long awaited judgment on the conjoined cases of Demouilpied & West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust which could have had a huge impact on the ATE industry if there had not been a sensible decision.  Finally this month we finish on another ‘hot’ topic i.e. the validity of moving a case from Legal Aid to a CFA. ATEMatters August 2019

by Sheena Court

Tue 06 Aug 19 | News
It’s that time of year again, the kids are back at school and the Christmas decorations are fighting for space on the shelves with the Halloween kitsch.  Never fear, the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection group is really something this month to get your fangs into.  Top of the list this month, and no doubt one which will bring a sigh of relief, is the judgment on Withers v Joyce & Nugent dealing with solicitors’ liability for costs.  ATE Matters would not be the same without something relating to Part 36 and again we fail to disappoint however, the subject of Without Prejudice is prominent this time round with two recent judgments worthy of note.  Finally, one to share with your injury litigation colleagues, some clarity on the Court’s approach to client witness evidence and the disparity with medical records. As always please do get in contact with us if you have any feedback on ATE Matters or if you have any queries or need advice on ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. Read the latest ATEMatters

by Sheena Court

Wed 11 Sep 19 | News
It’s that time of year again, the kids are back at school and the Christmas decorations are fighting for space on the shelves with the Halloween kitsch.  Never fear, the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection group is really something this month to get your fangs into.  Top of the list this month, and no doubt one which will bring a sigh of relief, is the judgment on Withers v Joyce & Nugent dealing with solicitors’ liability for costs.  ATE Matters would not be the same without something relating to Part 36 and again we fail to disappoint however, the subject of Without Prejudice is prominent this time round with two recent judgments worthy of note.  Finally, one to share with your injury litigation colleagues, some clarity on the Court’s approach to client witness evidence and the disparity with medical records. As always please do get in contact with us if you have any feedback on ATE Matters or if you have any queries or need advice on ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. Read the latest ATEMatters

by Sheena Court

Wed 11 Sep 19 | News
It might be a wet and windy October so far but one sure fire way to brighten your day is to settle down with a hot drink and read the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group.  A real mixed back of judgments and case updates this month starting with the determination as to whether correspondence from a claimant could be taken as ‘without prejudice’.  Read more

by Sheena Court

Wed 09 Oct 19 | News
It might be a wet and windy October so far but one sure fire way to brighten your day is to settle down with a hot drink and read the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group.  A real mixed back of judgments and case updates this month starting with the determination as to whether correspondence from a claimant could be taken as ‘without prejudice’.  Read more

by Sheena Court

Wed 09 Oct 19 | News
Now the nights are drawing in and the weather starts to turn, what better way to give yourself that Ready Brek ™ “glow” than to settle back with a hot drink and indulge yourself with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  We start this month with a judgment affecting third-party funding which could have had huge ramifications for the industry.  The omnipresent judgment relating to Part 36 appears this edition in the guise of Horne v Prescot (No 1) Ltd and a we take a look at a recent challenge to the Law Society model CFA.  Included are two topics which will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved with Clinical Negligence litigation and we finish off the November edition with a look at the recent report published on DBAs and new draft rules. As always our thanks to Professor David Chalk of University of Winchester without whom ATEMatters would not exist. If you have any comments, suggestions or would like to discuss anything relating to ATE insurance or costs/disbursement funding do please get in touch. ATEMatters November 2019

by Sheena Court

Wed 06 Nov 19 | News
Now the nights are drawing in and the weather starts to turn, what better way to give yourself that Ready Brek ™ “glow” than to settle back with a hot drink and indulge yourself with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  We start this month with a judgment affecting third-party funding which could have had huge ramifications for the industry.  The omnipresent judgment relating to Part 36 appears this edition in the guise of Horne v Prescot (No 1) Ltd and a we take a look at a recent challenge to the Law Society model CFA.  Included are two topics which will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved with Clinical Negligence litigation and we finish off the November edition with a look at the recent report published on DBAs and new draft rules. As always our thanks to Professor David Chalk of University of Winchester without whom ATEMatters would not exist. If you have any comments, suggestions or would like to discuss anything relating to ATE insurance or costs/disbursement funding do please get in touch. ATEMatters November 2019

by Sheena Court

Wed 06 Nov 19 | News
T’is the season to be jolly and once more LPG has a jolly good read for you with the Xmas edition of ATEMatters.  We start with a very interesting decision concerning a liability insurer and whether they should be the subject of a third-party costs order.  ATEMatters would not be the same without a Part 36 judgment and we fail to disappoint with the inclusion of Ho v Adelekin which considers Part 36 offers alongside the fixed costs regime.  The wording of and departure from the Law Society model CFA has come out of the cold again in the case of Healys LLP v Partridge leading to a judgment with huge potential costs ramifications.  One for your injury litigation colleagues next with a look at a case dealing with the difficult and emotive subject of ‘loss of chance’ and at which point medical evidence should be considered.  Finally, and to finish off 2019, do the circumstances of a late service of witness statement by the defence allow for relief from sanctions? Dootson v Newhouse seeks to show us the way. Read more  

by Sheena Court

Thu 05 Dec 19 | News
T’is the season to be jolly and once more LPG has a jolly good read for you with the Xmas edition of ATEMatters.  We start with a very interesting decision concerning a liability insurer and whether they should be the subject of a third-party costs order.  ATEMatters would not be the same without a Part 36 judgment and we fail to disappoint with the inclusion of Ho v Adelekin which considers Part 36 offers alongside the fixed costs regime.  The wording of and departure from the Law Society model CFA has come out of the cold again in the case of Healys LLP v Partridge leading to a judgment with huge potential costs ramifications.  One for your injury litigation colleagues next with a look at a case dealing with the difficult and emotive subject of ‘loss of chance’ and at which point medical evidence should be considered.  Finally, and to finish off 2019, do the circumstances of a late service of witness statement by the defence allow for relief from sanctions? Dootson v Newhouse seeks to show us the way. Read more  

by Sheena Court

Thu 05 Dec 19 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) today announces a new capacity arrangement with Alwyn Insurance Company Limited. Alwyn Insurance Company Limited (Alwyn) was formed in 2011 to provide delegated capacity on a meaningful basis to Managing General Agents (MGAs). Alwyn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Capital Group Ltd. and carries A+ financial strength rating from A.M. Best Company. Legal Protection Group launched as a MGA in 2016 and provides a full range of Before-the-Event (BTE), Assistance and After-the-Event (ATE) products including commercial and civil ATE policies. Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, said ‘We are extremely pleased that we have secured the support of an insurer that provides A+ financial strength, has a strong desire to build on our existing book of business and achievements to-date and shares our focus of working closely with our broker and solicitor partners. At every stage since our launch we have had the support of some tremendous business partners who saw real value in the experience, enthusiasm, customer service and speed of response we bring to the legal expenses market. We are excited about this new chapter with Alwyn, which will enable us to build on our successful launch and further develop and deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward. To take advantage of the available opportunities, we are recruiting in both our Bristol and London offices to strengthen the service and support we provide to our business partners.”

by Sheena Court

Thu 05 Dec 19 | News
Legal Protection Group (LPG) today announces a new capacity arrangement with Alwyn Insurance Company Limited. Alwyn Insurance Company Limited (Alwyn) was formed in 2011 to provide delegated capacity on a meaningful basis to Managing General Agents (MGAs). Alwyn is a wholly owned subsidiary of Arch Capital Group Ltd. and carries A+ financial strength rating from A.M. Best Company. Legal Protection Group launched as a MGA in 2016 and provides a full range of Before-the-Event (BTE), Assistance and After-the-Event (ATE) products including commercial and civil ATE policies. Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, said ‘We are extremely pleased that we have secured the support of an insurer that provides A+ financial strength, has a strong desire to build on our existing book of business and achievements to-date and shares our focus of working closely with our broker and solicitor partners. At every stage since our launch we have had the support of some tremendous business partners who saw real value in the experience, enthusiasm, customer service and speed of response we bring to the legal expenses market. We are excited about this new chapter with Alwyn, which will enable us to build on our successful launch and further develop and deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward. To take advantage of the available opportunities, we are recruiting in both our Bristol and London offices to strengthen the service and support we provide to our business partners.”

by Sheena Court

Thu 05 Dec 19 | News
Welcome to the first edition of ATEMatters for a new decade and happy New Year from all of us at Legal Protection Group. We kick off the New Year with an interesting claim focused on the balance of probability as to how damage was caused.  No edition would be complete without judgments relating to Part 36 and this month is no exception with two cases making the list.  Rules relating to Relief against sanctions are still confusing and in this edition we highlight a decision to refuse relief being overturned on appeal Read the January 2020 edition

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Jan 20 | News
Welcome to the first edition of ATEMatters for a new decade and happy New Year from all of us at Legal Protection Group. We kick off the New Year with an interesting claim focused on the balance of probability as to how damage was caused.  No edition would be complete without judgments relating to Part 36 and this month is no exception with two cases making the list.  Rules relating to Relief against sanctions are still confusing and in this edition we highlight a decision to refuse relief being overturned on appeal Read the January 2020 edition

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Jan 20 | News
We are pleased to announce the appointment of Darren Weekes to the newly created role of Partnership Development Manager. Darren has over 30 years’ experience in the insurance industry, 25 years of which was working for DAS in Business Development and Partnership Management roles including a senior management role as Head of Broker Partnerships.   Commenting on his appointment, Darren said, “I am delighted to have been invited to join Legal Protection Group.  In just 3 years they have positioned themselves as a serious player in the LEI and Add On product sector and I was very impressed by the future plans that they have. I am excited about being an integral part of their future growth” Neil McDermott joins in the new role of City Underwriter. Neil is also exceptionally experienced having worked for a number of other insurance companies and managing general agents, amongst others: Amicus Legal, DAS, and UK General in product, technical support and underwriting roles on various ancillary and financial loss policies. Prior to joining Legal Protection Group, Neil was involved with developing and launching a personal cyber policy designed for all private individuals with a digital footprint, principally to counter losses arising from the burgeoning risk of economic crime carried out online, as well as costs involved in removing online content of a bullying or defamatory nature and restoring data/device to a functioning state following unauthorised third party access or malware. Neil is thrilled to be joining the Legal Protection Group team and consolidate on the underwriting function with focus on supporting Andy Tomkins and Darren Weekes in the City office.   Neil commented, "The company’s performance since it was formed and future plans impressed me and I look forward to playing my part in growing the profitable portfolio of ancillary insurance business." Darren and Neil join Andy Tomkins, City Broker Manager, in our London office. Andy Westall, Sales Director of Legal Protection Group, said “We are delighted that another two very experienced industry professionals have chosen to join our team. Our current focus is to ensure that we have the right people in place to support our expansions plans for 2020 and the knowledge and experience that both Darren and Neil bring will be central to making this happen. We welcome them both to Legal Protection Group.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 05 Feb 20 | News
We are pleased to announce the appointment of Darren Weekes to the newly created role of Partnership Development Manager. Darren has over 30 years’ experience in the insurance industry, 25 years of which was working for DAS in Business Development and Partnership Management roles including a senior management role as Head of Broker Partnerships.   Commenting on his appointment, Darren said, “I am delighted to have been invited to join Legal Protection Group.  In just 3 years they have positioned themselves as a serious player in the LEI and Add On product sector and I was very impressed by the future plans that they have. I am excited about being an integral part of their future growth” Neil McDermott joins in the new role of City Underwriter. Neil is also exceptionally experienced having worked for a number of other insurance companies and managing general agents, amongst others: Amicus Legal, DAS, and UK General in product, technical support and underwriting roles on various ancillary and financial loss policies. Prior to joining Legal Protection Group, Neil was involved with developing and launching a personal cyber policy designed for all private individuals with a digital footprint, principally to counter losses arising from the burgeoning risk of economic crime carried out online, as well as costs involved in removing online content of a bullying or defamatory nature and restoring data/device to a functioning state following unauthorised third party access or malware. Neil is thrilled to be joining the Legal Protection Group team and consolidate on the underwriting function with focus on supporting Andy Tomkins and Darren Weekes in the City office.   Neil commented, "The company’s performance since it was formed and future plans impressed me and I look forward to playing my part in growing the profitable portfolio of ancillary insurance business." Darren and Neil join Andy Tomkins, City Broker Manager, in our London office. Andy Westall, Sales Director of Legal Protection Group, said “We are delighted that another two very experienced industry professionals have chosen to join our team. Our current focus is to ensure that we have the right people in place to support our expansions plans for 2020 and the knowledge and experience that both Darren and Neil bring will be central to making this happen. We welcome them both to Legal Protection Group.”

by Sheena Court

Wed 05 Feb 20 | News
We start this month with an extremely important decision in the case of Burden Holdings (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Fielding [2010] EWHC 2995 (Ch) and one which anyone involved with third-party funding should take note of.  In essence, the decision centred on the application of the  ‘Arkin Cap’ and whether a funder can be made the subject of a costs order.  Although an RTA case, the decision in Ho v Adelekun [2019] EWCA Civ 1988 can equally apply to any case where a fixed costs scheme is in place.  The case of Jet 2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1858 is one definitely requiring some further reading especially for any firm involved in holiday sickness litigation.  The final two case updates this month will be of interest to your injury litigation colleagues.  The judgment in Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair [2020] EWCA Civ 17 is instrumental in determining whether fixed costs and QOCS apply to appeals, whilst Morrison v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 91 (QB) looks at a Judge’s application of the Bolam test in determining causation. As always, our sincere thanks to David Chalk of University of Winchester for providing us with our case updates. If you have any comments on ATE Matters or wish to discuss anything to do with ATE insurance and/or case funding, please do get in touch. ATEMatters Newsletter

by Sheena Court

Thu 20 Feb 20 | News
We start this month with an extremely important decision in the case of Burden Holdings (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Fielding [2010] EWHC 2995 (Ch) and one which anyone involved with third-party funding should take note of.  In essence, the decision centred on the application of the  ‘Arkin Cap’ and whether a funder can be made the subject of a costs order.  Although an RTA case, the decision in Ho v Adelekun [2019] EWCA Civ 1988 can equally apply to any case where a fixed costs scheme is in place.  The case of Jet 2 Holidays Ltd v Hughes & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1858 is one definitely requiring some further reading especially for any firm involved in holiday sickness litigation.  The final two case updates this month will be of interest to your injury litigation colleagues.  The judgment in Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair [2020] EWCA Civ 17 is instrumental in determining whether fixed costs and QOCS apply to appeals, whilst Morrison v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 91 (QB) looks at a Judge’s application of the Bolam test in determining causation. As always, our sincere thanks to David Chalk of University of Winchester for providing us with our case updates. If you have any comments on ATE Matters or wish to discuss anything to do with ATE insurance and/or case funding, please do get in touch. ATEMatters Newsletter

by Sheena Court

Thu 20 Feb 20 | News
It may well be wet, windy and miserable outside but once again you can look forward to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection group.  This month our friend, Prof. David Chalk, gives us his views on the latest key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation. We start this edition with some guidance from the Chancellor of the Hight Court on the implementation of the new Disclosure Pilot for the Business and Property Courts (PD51U) scheme.  The case of Lejonvarn v Burgess [2020] has provided particular interest and this latest update is no exception.  For the second month in a row, and a judgment which will be of utmost interest to anyone involved with Litigation Funding, is a decision on the application of the ‘Arkin Cap’ and one contrary to a case reported in last month’s edition.  We have included a couple of cases to finish off this edition which will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in Clinical Negligence work.  Firstly, the case of Burke v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2019] and a decision concerning ‘Expert Shopping’ and finally, another judgment relating to fixed costs and one applicable to all schemes not just RTA. Read more  

by Sheena Court

Tue 10 Mar 20 | News
It may well be wet, windy and miserable outside but once again you can look forward to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection group.  This month our friend, Prof. David Chalk, gives us his views on the latest key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation. We start this edition with some guidance from the Chancellor of the Hight Court on the implementation of the new Disclosure Pilot for the Business and Property Courts (PD51U) scheme.  The case of Lejonvarn v Burgess [2020] has provided particular interest and this latest update is no exception.  For the second month in a row, and a judgment which will be of utmost interest to anyone involved with Litigation Funding, is a decision on the application of the ‘Arkin Cap’ and one contrary to a case reported in last month’s edition.  We have included a couple of cases to finish off this edition which will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in Clinical Negligence work.  Firstly, the case of Burke v Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust [2019] and a decision concerning ‘Expert Shopping’ and finally, another judgment relating to fixed costs and one applicable to all schemes not just RTA. Read more  

by Sheena Court

Tue 10 Mar 20 | News
As the global effect of coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to evolve, we would like to assure you that we remain confident in our ongoing ability to support your firm and our mutual clients. We are fully committed to the health and safety of our employees and have implemented our business continuity plan which means that all our employees are working from home.  However, we will still be available via email or telephone to deal with any enquiries and maintain service levels. Our service providers have all confirmed that similar business continuity plans are in place and there is currently no disruption to business as usual.  We are regularly monitoring the situation and although we do not currently foresee any significant impact on our services, we will ensure to keep you informed if the situation changes. Finally if you have any queries in relation to the above please do not hesitate to contact us on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Thu 19 Mar 20 | News
As the global effect of coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to evolve, we would like to assure you that we remain confident in our ongoing ability to support your firm and our mutual clients. We are fully committed to the health and safety of our employees and have implemented our business continuity plan which means that all our employees are working from home.  However, we will still be available via email or telephone to deal with any enquiries and maintain service levels. Our service providers have all confirmed that similar business continuity plans are in place and there is currently no disruption to business as usual.  We are regularly monitoring the situation and although we do not currently foresee any significant impact on our services, we will ensure to keep you informed if the situation changes. Finally if you have any queries in relation to the above please do not hesitate to contact us on 0333 700 1040.

by Sheena Court

Thu 19 Mar 20 | News
During this unprecedented time of uncertainty, HMCTS and the MoJ have put in place a number of changed working practices including telephone/video hearings and prioritising cases to be heard ensuring both the safety of everyone concerned and that the justice system continues to operate effectively.  The following link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation gives more information how the courts and tribunals will operate during the current climate. As cases are still being heard, Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the April edition of ATE Matters containing the latest court judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding. If you have any queries at all on anything to do with ATE insurance and/or funding for litigation, please do get in touch. As always are thanks to Professor David Chalk for his invaluable assistance putting together ATEMatters. Finally, all of us as Legal Protection Group would like to wish you and your families all the vey best during this difficult time.  Please do take care and stay safe. ATEMatters April 2020  

by Sheena Court

Wed 08 Apr 20 | News
During this unprecedented time of uncertainty, HMCTS and the MoJ have put in place a number of changed working practices including telephone/video hearings and prioritising cases to be heard ensuring both the safety of everyone concerned and that the justice system continues to operate effectively.  The following link https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-courts-and-tribunals-planning-and-preparation gives more information how the courts and tribunals will operate during the current climate. As cases are still being heard, Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the April edition of ATE Matters containing the latest court judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding. If you have any queries at all on anything to do with ATE insurance and/or funding for litigation, please do get in touch. As always are thanks to Professor David Chalk for his invaluable assistance putting together ATEMatters. Finally, all of us as Legal Protection Group would like to wish you and your families all the vey best during this difficult time.  Please do take care and stay safe. ATEMatters April 2020  

by Sheena Court

Wed 08 Apr 20 | News
We have updated our advice for landlords during the Covid-19 pandemic. COVID-19 LERG Insurance FAQs

by Sheena Court

Tue 28 Apr 20 | News
We have updated our advice for landlords during the Covid-19 pandemic. COVID-19 LERG Insurance FAQs

by Sheena Court

Tue 28 Apr 20 | News
Legal Protection Group are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters containing the most recent and important updates affecting the world of clinical negligence and litigation as a whole. We start this month with two cases bringing vicarious liability for the wrongful actions of an employee under the spotlight. The following updates this month are , I’m sure, going to be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in clinical negligence litigation especially the last.  The case of XDE v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust brings into focus again the tricky subject of switching a case from legal aid to a CFA/ATE arrangement and the possible implications. As always please do let us know if you have any comments on ATE Matters or would like to discuss any aspect of litigation insurance and funding. Please take care and stay safe in these uncertain times. ATEMatters May 2020

by Sheena Court

Wed 13 May 20 | News
Legal Protection Group are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters containing the most recent and important updates affecting the world of clinical negligence and litigation as a whole. We start this month with two cases bringing vicarious liability for the wrongful actions of an employee under the spotlight. The following updates this month are , I’m sure, going to be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in clinical negligence litigation especially the last.  The case of XDE v North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust brings into focus again the tricky subject of switching a case from legal aid to a CFA/ATE arrangement and the possible implications. As always please do let us know if you have any comments on ATE Matters or would like to discuss any aspect of litigation insurance and funding. Please take care and stay safe in these uncertain times. ATEMatters May 2020

by Sheena Court

Wed 13 May 20 | News
            Uncomfortable using unrated paper for your legal expenses? - Give us a try Our policy will give you:- A-Rated paper Comprehensive cover across the full product range, including rent guarantee Competitive commission rates  Fast, simple process to get a competitive quote Contact us now for quotes on any upcoming renewals. If you are utilising a Legal Expenses scheme facility we will be happy to talk about providing an improved product at a competitive price.

by Sheena Court

Tue 19 May 20 | News
            Uncomfortable using unrated paper for your legal expenses? - Give us a try Our policy will give you:- A-Rated paper Comprehensive cover across the full product range, including rent guarantee Competitive commission rates  Fast, simple process to get a competitive quote Contact us now for quotes on any upcoming renewals. If you are utilising a Legal Expenses scheme facility we will be happy to talk about providing an improved product at a competitive price.

by Sheena Court

Tue 19 May 20 | News
Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the June edition of ATE Matters highlighting the most recent and key case judgments affecting the world of clinical negligence and litigation as a whole.  In this month’s edition, failure to engage in ADR plays a pivotal role.  We start though with a judge’s use of statistical evidence to prove causation being upheld on appeal.  A decision regarding a ‘Calderbank’ offer made during detailed cost assessment comes under the spotlight followed by three very important judgments relating to the costs consequences of failing to engage in ADR.  Finally in this edition we look at a decision over ‘standard of proof’ which will be of interest to any of you or your colleagues involved in general civil litigation.   Read here

by Sheena Court

Tue 09 Jun 20 | News
Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the June edition of ATE Matters highlighting the most recent and key case judgments affecting the world of clinical negligence and litigation as a whole.  In this month’s edition, failure to engage in ADR plays a pivotal role.  We start though with a judge’s use of statistical evidence to prove causation being upheld on appeal.  A decision regarding a ‘Calderbank’ offer made during detailed cost assessment comes under the spotlight followed by three very important judgments relating to the costs consequences of failing to engage in ADR.  Finally in this edition we look at a decision over ‘standard of proof’ which will be of interest to any of you or your colleagues involved in general civil litigation.   Read here

by Sheena Court

Tue 09 Jun 20 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group, showcasing the key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding.  This month we start by looking at an attempt to depart from a costs budget on the basis there had been an ‘underspend’.  McKenzie friends and their ‘rights of audience’ come under the spotlight in the case of Ameyaw v McGoldric and ors, whilst Farmer v Chief Constable of Lancashire highlights the always tricky subject of CFAs and retrospectivity which is well worth a read.  We finish this edition with two cases which will be of particular interest to anyone involved in Clinical Negligence litigation. A decision involving secondary victims and their witness to an ‘event’ is considered with our final offering looking at the impact of late evidence submission and relief from sanctions. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments on ATEMatters or if we can advise you on anything to do with ATE insurance or litigation funding. ATEMatters July 2020

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Jul 20 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group, showcasing the key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding.  This month we start by looking at an attempt to depart from a costs budget on the basis there had been an ‘underspend’.  McKenzie friends and their ‘rights of audience’ come under the spotlight in the case of Ameyaw v McGoldric and ors, whilst Farmer v Chief Constable of Lancashire highlights the always tricky subject of CFAs and retrospectivity which is well worth a read.  We finish this edition with two cases which will be of particular interest to anyone involved in Clinical Negligence litigation. A decision involving secondary victims and their witness to an ‘event’ is considered with our final offering looking at the impact of late evidence submission and relief from sanctions. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments on ATEMatters or if we can advise you on anything to do with ATE insurance or litigation funding. ATEMatters July 2020

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Jul 20 | News
  We are pleased to announce the launch of our brand new Key Protect cover.  Available as an optional add-on or on a mandatory basis to a motor or home policy, with a £1.500 standard cover for lost keys, our No Excess policy covers motor and house keys that are lost, broken, stolen or locked in a car or property.       With our Key Protect policy, your customers will benefit from: - Cover without the need for key fob registration A slick and streamlined claims service from start to end Nationwide panel of locksmiths deployed to customers’ car or home Claims costs being paid by the policy directly to the locksmiths   More Information  

by Sheena Court

Wed 22 Jul 20 | News
  We are pleased to announce the launch of our brand new Key Protect cover.  Available as an optional add-on or on a mandatory basis to a motor or home policy, with a £1.500 standard cover for lost keys, our No Excess policy covers motor and house keys that are lost, broken, stolen or locked in a car or property.       With our Key Protect policy, your customers will benefit from: - Cover without the need for key fob registration A slick and streamlined claims service from start to end Nationwide panel of locksmiths deployed to customers’ car or home Claims costs being paid by the policy directly to the locksmiths   More Information  

by Sheena Court

Wed 22 Jul 20 | News
In these unprecedented times we now find ourselves in week 20 of Covid-19 lockdown.  Everyone is learning to adapt to new working practices and the Courts are no exception so Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters highlighting the most recent key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation. We start this edition with a particularly interesting case decision dealing with the ‘duty of care’ owed to a third party.  Anything which gives clarity to the use of DBAs is a bonus and this month we look at the impact on getting paid should a DBA be terminated which is pretty important.  ATE Matters would not be the same without a decision relating to the ubiquitous Part 36.  Again, this month is no exception and I would love to know if this case was insured!  With disbursement funding in ever increasing circulation, the uncertainty of loan interest and recoverability comes under the spotlight with a judgment which is one to take note of if you make use of CCA lending.  Finally in this edition, we highlight an interesting case looking at client anonymity and one which could add a useful tool to a claimant’s kit. ATEMatters August 2020

by Sheena Court

Tue 11 Aug 20 | News
In these unprecedented times we now find ourselves in week 20 of Covid-19 lockdown.  Everyone is learning to adapt to new working practices and the Courts are no exception so Legal Protection Group are pleased to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters highlighting the most recent key judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation. We start this edition with a particularly interesting case decision dealing with the ‘duty of care’ owed to a third party.  Anything which gives clarity to the use of DBAs is a bonus and this month we look at the impact on getting paid should a DBA be terminated which is pretty important.  ATE Matters would not be the same without a decision relating to the ubiquitous Part 36.  Again, this month is no exception and I would love to know if this case was insured!  With disbursement funding in ever increasing circulation, the uncertainty of loan interest and recoverability comes under the spotlight with a judgment which is one to take note of if you make use of CCA lending.  Finally in this edition, we highlight an interesting case looking at client anonymity and one which could add a useful tool to a claimant’s kit. ATEMatters August 2020

by Sheena Court

Tue 11 Aug 20 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters with our take on the latest decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation, funding and insurance.  This month we start with a Supreme Court decision to depart from an assumed test as to whether a covenant restrictive of the use of land was in restraint of trade.  Glover v Barker considers the sometimes difficult position of a litigation friend’s liability for costs.  A very interesting case next resulting in a decision determining the judge was not entitled to evaluate evidence on causation. CPR 45.29I (2)(c) comes under the spotlight and is well worth noting and we finish this edition with the potentially emotive subject of a patient’s capacity to consent to treatment.   ATEMatters September 2020

by Sheena Court

Thu 10 Sep 20 | News
Legal Protection Group is delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters with our take on the latest decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation, funding and insurance.  This month we start with a Supreme Court decision to depart from an assumed test as to whether a covenant restrictive of the use of land was in restraint of trade.  Glover v Barker considers the sometimes difficult position of a litigation friend’s liability for costs.  A very interesting case next resulting in a decision determining the judge was not entitled to evaluate evidence on causation. CPR 45.29I (2)(c) comes under the spotlight and is well worth noting and we finish this edition with the potentially emotive subject of a patient’s capacity to consent to treatment.   ATEMatters September 2020

by Sheena Court

Thu 10 Sep 20 | News
We are pleased to announce the launch of our new Newsletter - Legal Protection Group News.  This Autumn 2020 edition is full of news about our team, new recruits and recent and upcoming product launches.    We hope you will enjoy getting to know a little more about Legal Protection Group and, if you have any feedback or ideas for future content, please do get in touch.   Legal Protection Group Newsletter Autumn 2020  

by Sheena Court

Tue 15 Sep 20 | News
We are pleased to announce the launch of our new Newsletter - Legal Protection Group News.  This Autumn 2020 edition is full of news about our team, new recruits and recent and upcoming product launches.    We hope you will enjoy getting to know a little more about Legal Protection Group and, if you have any feedback or ideas for future content, please do get in touch.   Legal Protection Group Newsletter Autumn 2020  

by Sheena Court

Tue 15 Sep 20 | News
The summer has come and gone but the latest edition of ATEMatters is here to brighten your day.  We start this month with a key decision resulting in three CFAs being deemed unenforceable and subsequently invalidated due to the uplift exceeding 100%.  ATEMatters would not be the same without reference to Part 36 and this month is no exception as we bring you details of three recent case judgments. Finally in this edition we look at whether the High Court exercised discretion correctly in not allowing a claimant to abandon single joint expert and adjourn trial. ATEMatters October 2020

by Sheena Court

Tue 13 Oct 20 | News
The summer has come and gone but the latest edition of ATEMatters is here to brighten your day.  We start this month with a key decision resulting in three CFAs being deemed unenforceable and subsequently invalidated due to the uplift exceeding 100%.  ATEMatters would not be the same without reference to Part 36 and this month is no exception as we bring you details of three recent case judgments. Finally in this edition we look at whether the High Court exercised discretion correctly in not allowing a claimant to abandon single joint expert and adjourn trial. ATEMatters October 2020

by Sheena Court

Tue 13 Oct 20 | News
Shipshape and Bristol Fashion - that's our new Watercraft Legal Expenses cover!     Life on the ocean waves (or indeed the local river or lake!) can be pleasurable, relaxing and calm.  Navigating your way through marine law is somewhat less so!  Marine law is complex and many everyday boating related legal disputes are not covered by a typical boat insurance policy. In the event of a legal dispute, such as disagreements with retailers of goods and providers of services used in connection with the craft, defending criminal proceedings or racing collisions, it is important that your customers have access to the specialist advice and representation that they will need. From canoes to jet skis and dinghies to yachts, we cover all types of leisure craft up to a LOA (average length) of 24.09 metres (79 foot) long on a scheme basis.   With our Watercraft Legal Expenses policy, your customers will benefit from: - Specialist maritime law advice from LA Marine A network of local agents (advocates) in France, Greece, Italy, and Spain – the most common cruising/sailing jurisdictions in the European Union No aggregate limit A-Rated insurance cover Our cover includes all the features and benefits that you would expect from a typical marine policy, including £100k indemnity per claim, access to legal helplines and certain fees in the event of identity theft. Watercraft Legal Expenses  is available as one aggregated net rate applying to all schemes (minimum 100 craft) as an optional add-on or mandatory cover on a boat insurance policy.    Contact us for more information or to arrange a discussion

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Oct 20 | News
Shipshape and Bristol Fashion - that's our new Watercraft Legal Expenses cover!     Life on the ocean waves (or indeed the local river or lake!) can be pleasurable, relaxing and calm.  Navigating your way through marine law is somewhat less so!  Marine law is complex and many everyday boating related legal disputes are not covered by a typical boat insurance policy. In the event of a legal dispute, such as disagreements with retailers of goods and providers of services used in connection with the craft, defending criminal proceedings or racing collisions, it is important that your customers have access to the specialist advice and representation that they will need. From canoes to jet skis and dinghies to yachts, we cover all types of leisure craft up to a LOA (average length) of 24.09 metres (79 foot) long on a scheme basis.   With our Watercraft Legal Expenses policy, your customers will benefit from: - Specialist maritime law advice from LA Marine A network of local agents (advocates) in France, Greece, Italy, and Spain – the most common cruising/sailing jurisdictions in the European Union No aggregate limit A-Rated insurance cover Our cover includes all the features and benefits that you would expect from a typical marine policy, including £100k indemnity per claim, access to legal helplines and certain fees in the event of identity theft. Watercraft Legal Expenses  is available as one aggregated net rate applying to all schemes (minimum 100 craft) as an optional add-on or mandatory cover on a boat insurance policy.    Contact us for more information or to arrange a discussion

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Oct 20 | News
The end of this crazy year is in sight now however legal judgments and key litigation decisions continue unabated.  For this reason, take time out of your busy schedule to sit back, relax and look through the penultimate ATE Matters of 2020 from Legal Protection Group. We start this edition with a look at ‘Waiver by Election’ and its impact in the contract dispute between Delta Petroleum (Caribbean) Ltd v British Virgin Islands Electricity Corporation.  The Disclosure Pilot is back under the spotlight with what appears to be a ‘slap on the wrist’ for both the claimant and defendant in one particular example. An interesting judgment next relating to Part 36 and the entitlement to enhanced relief as stipulated in CPR 36.17. We end this month with two judgments which will be of considerable interest to any of your colleagues involved in injury litigation.  A lot of people will have been waiting for the outcome as to whether the case of Swift v Carpenter could be appealed given the potential impact on the discount rate.  With refusal by the court, the new discount rate calculation remains although it is understood the defendant may consider another go so watch this space! Last but not least, Belsner v Cam Legal Services is an appeal decision everyone running CFA cases should take particular note of given the potential ramifications. As always, our thanks to Professor David Chalk for his invaluable assistance with ATE Matters and please do get in contact with us at Legal Protection Group if you have any comments or we can be of assistance in any way. ATEMatters November 2020  

by Sheena Court

Thu 12 Nov 20 | News
The end of this crazy year is in sight now however legal judgments and key litigation decisions continue unabated.  For this reason, take time out of your busy schedule to sit back, relax and look through the penultimate ATE Matters of 2020 from Legal Protection Group. We start this edition with a look at ‘Waiver by Election’ and its impact in the contract dispute between Delta Petroleum (Caribbean) Ltd v British Virgin Islands Electricity Corporation.  The Disclosure Pilot is back under the spotlight with what appears to be a ‘slap on the wrist’ for both the claimant and defendant in one particular example. An interesting judgment next relating to Part 36 and the entitlement to enhanced relief as stipulated in CPR 36.17. We end this month with two judgments which will be of considerable interest to any of your colleagues involved in injury litigation.  A lot of people will have been waiting for the outcome as to whether the case of Swift v Carpenter could be appealed given the potential impact on the discount rate.  With refusal by the court, the new discount rate calculation remains although it is understood the defendant may consider another go so watch this space! Last but not least, Belsner v Cam Legal Services is an appeal decision everyone running CFA cases should take particular note of given the potential ramifications. As always, our thanks to Professor David Chalk for his invaluable assistance with ATE Matters and please do get in contact with us at Legal Protection Group if you have any comments or we can be of assistance in any way. ATEMatters November 2020  

by Sheena Court

Thu 12 Nov 20 | News
Some pretty big changes are heading our way in April with the implementation of the Civil Liability Act. Once implemented this Act will reform how small value injury claims will be handled and this is predicted to hit over 90% of motor accident injuries. This will have significant implications to how customers are protected by their Motor Legal Expenses policies. We are delighted to announce the launch of our Motor Legal Expenses policy to make things easier for both brokers and their clients. If you would like to discuss the implications and how our product will provide protection to you and your clients please get in contact.   Legal Protection Group Motor Legal Protection: Policy wording does not exclude claims effected by the Civil Liability Act reforms Premiums are guaranteed for a minimum of 12 months We have partnered with Kindertons Accident Management - a leading company helping motorists after an accident Full range of services including replacement vehicle hire, vehicle repair, injury medical and legal services and recovery of uninsured losses Smart phone app and website to report and track progress of claims Range of additional products including Motor Breakdown and Excess Cover.

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Dec 20 | News
Some pretty big changes are heading our way in April with the implementation of the Civil Liability Act. Once implemented this Act will reform how small value injury claims will be handled and this is predicted to hit over 90% of motor accident injuries. This will have significant implications to how customers are protected by their Motor Legal Expenses policies. We are delighted to announce the launch of our Motor Legal Expenses policy to make things easier for both brokers and their clients. If you would like to discuss the implications and how our product will provide protection to you and your clients please get in contact.   Legal Protection Group Motor Legal Protection: Policy wording does not exclude claims effected by the Civil Liability Act reforms Premiums are guaranteed for a minimum of 12 months We have partnered with Kindertons Accident Management - a leading company helping motorists after an accident Full range of services including replacement vehicle hire, vehicle repair, injury medical and legal services and recovery of uninsured losses Smart phone app and website to report and track progress of claims Range of additional products including Motor Breakdown and Excess Cover.

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Dec 20 | News
For the final time in 2020, Legal Protection Group is delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters.  We start this time round with a look at a case involving the Land Property Act of 1924 and cynical breach of covenant.  Next come two conflicting decisions regarding the use of illegality as a defence where it was allowed in a Clinical Negligence claim yet disallowed in a case of Solicitor’s Negligence.  Finally for this year, and as no surprise I’m sure, two judgments concerning Part 36 including juicy one centred on the use of the terminology “subject to contract”. As always please do get in touch with us at Legal Protection Group if you have any comments, queries or would like advice or assistance with your ATE or funding arrangements. ATEMatters December 2020

by Sheena Court

Thu 10 Dec 20 | News
For the final time in 2020, Legal Protection Group is delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters.  We start this time round with a look at a case involving the Land Property Act of 1924 and cynical breach of covenant.  Next come two conflicting decisions regarding the use of illegality as a defence where it was allowed in a Clinical Negligence claim yet disallowed in a case of Solicitor’s Negligence.  Finally for this year, and as no surprise I’m sure, two judgments concerning Part 36 including juicy one centred on the use of the terminology “subject to contract”. As always please do get in touch with us at Legal Protection Group if you have any comments, queries or would like advice or assistance with your ATE or funding arrangements. ATEMatters December 2020

by Sheena Court

Thu 10 Dec 20 | News
    Happy New Year from all at Legal Protection Group. This Winter edition of our Newsletter has all the latest news about our team, our upcoming office move and new product launches.        We hope you will enjoy getting to know a little more about Legal Protection Group and, if you have any feedback or ideas for future content, please do get in touch.     Legal Protection Group Newsletter Winter 2020  

by Sheena Court

Tue 05 Jan 21 | News
    Happy New Year from all at Legal Protection Group. This Winter edition of our Newsletter has all the latest news about our team, our upcoming office move and new product launches.        We hope you will enjoy getting to know a little more about Legal Protection Group and, if you have any feedback or ideas for future content, please do get in touch.     Legal Protection Group Newsletter Winter 2020  

by Sheena Court

Tue 05 Jan 21 | News
Is your Motor Legal Expenses policy ready for the Civil Liability Act?Some pretty big changes are heading our way in May with the implementation of the Civil Liability Act. Once implemented this Act will reform how small value injury claims will be handled and this is predicted to hit over 90% of motor accident injuries.This will have significant implications to how customers are protected by their Motor Legal Expenses policies. Has your current provider been in contact to advise you of the implications?We are delighted to announce the launch of our Motor Legal Expenses policy to make things easier for both brokers and their clients. If you would like to discuss the implications and how our product will provide protection to you and your clients please get in contact. Read more about the changes happening in May https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/government-pushes-back-lip-portal-roll-out-to-may-2021/1436053.article

by Sheena Court

Tue 12 Jan 21 | News
Is your Motor Legal Expenses policy ready for the Civil Liability Act?Some pretty big changes are heading our way in May with the implementation of the Civil Liability Act. Once implemented this Act will reform how small value injury claims will be handled and this is predicted to hit over 90% of motor accident injuries.This will have significant implications to how customers are protected by their Motor Legal Expenses policies. Has your current provider been in contact to advise you of the implications?We are delighted to announce the launch of our Motor Legal Expenses policy to make things easier for both brokers and their clients. If you would like to discuss the implications and how our product will provide protection to you and your clients please get in contact. Read more about the changes happening in May https://www.insurancetimes.co.uk/news/government-pushes-back-lip-portal-roll-out-to-may-2021/1436053.article

by Sheena Court

Tue 12 Jan 21 | News
We start the New Year in the same vein we left 2020 yet despite all the confusion and lock-down, litigation judgments continue to come through thick and fast.  For the first ATE Matters of 2021 we bring you five new decisions which I’m sure you and your colleagues will find of interest so grab a hot beverage of choice and read on. This edition we start with a very interesting case involving ATE insurance and the provider’s right of subrogation and ability to a claims contribution from a co-litigant.  Should cricket matches come with a Government Health Warning?  I’ll leave at that but surely common sense prevailed.  Does amending particulars of claim constitute a partial discontinuance? That was the question posed in Carter Projects Ltd v CUA Property Ltd.  The last but one this month will be of interest I’m sure to any of you or your colleagues involved with CFA work.  A decision determining the justification for a staged recoverable success fee is well worth a read up on.  Finally, one for your Clinical Negligence colleagues with an emotive case looking at wrongful life. As always, please do let us know if you have any comments or queries regarding ATE insurance or litigation funding.   Read the ATEMatters January 2021 Edition

by Sheena Court

Wed 13 Jan 21 | News
We start the New Year in the same vein we left 2020 yet despite all the confusion and lock-down, litigation judgments continue to come through thick and fast.  For the first ATE Matters of 2021 we bring you five new decisions which I’m sure you and your colleagues will find of interest so grab a hot beverage of choice and read on. This edition we start with a very interesting case involving ATE insurance and the provider’s right of subrogation and ability to a claims contribution from a co-litigant.  Should cricket matches come with a Government Health Warning?  I’ll leave at that but surely common sense prevailed.  Does amending particulars of claim constitute a partial discontinuance? That was the question posed in Carter Projects Ltd v CUA Property Ltd.  The last but one this month will be of interest I’m sure to any of you or your colleagues involved with CFA work.  A decision determining the justification for a staged recoverable success fee is well worth a read up on.  Finally, one for your Clinical Negligence colleagues with an emotive case looking at wrongful life. As always, please do let us know if you have any comments or queries regarding ATE insurance or litigation funding.   Read the ATEMatters January 2021 Edition

by Sheena Court

Wed 13 Jan 21 | News
We are half way through February already so it is high time we brought you the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group! First off this month, the Law Society CFA comes under the spotlight, in particular the clauses relating to a solicitor’s right to basic charges on termination.  DBAs are a hot topic at the moment and the Court of Appeal decision in Zuberi v Lexlaw [2021] further enhances their validity and use.  Two key decisions regarding Part 36 are up next, the first of which we provided the ATE insurance for: The case of Pallett v MGN is probably one of the most significant decisions regarding the use of Part 36 for many years so a must to read up on; The second, if the claimant had had their way, would have given rise to a very bizarre situation.  Finally this month, we take a look at a very interesting judgment on a clinical negligence case where primary limitation expired nearly 20 years ago! ATEMatters February 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 16 Feb 21 | News
We are half way through February already so it is high time we brought you the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group! First off this month, the Law Society CFA comes under the spotlight, in particular the clauses relating to a solicitor’s right to basic charges on termination.  DBAs are a hot topic at the moment and the Court of Appeal decision in Zuberi v Lexlaw [2021] further enhances their validity and use.  Two key decisions regarding Part 36 are up next, the first of which we provided the ATE insurance for: The case of Pallett v MGN is probably one of the most significant decisions regarding the use of Part 36 for many years so a must to read up on; The second, if the claimant had had their way, would have given rise to a very bizarre situation.  Finally this month, we take a look at a very interesting judgment on a clinical negligence case where primary limitation expired nearly 20 years ago! ATEMatters February 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 16 Feb 21 | News
We're pleased to support the @Managing General Agents' Association Meet the MGA Market event on 2nd March 2021 and are looking forward to meeting insurance brokers to explore business opportunities and creating partnerships together.   Book your meeting slot now!

by Sheena Court

Wed 24 Feb 21 | News
We're pleased to support the @Managing General Agents' Association Meet the MGA Market event on 2nd March 2021 and are looking forward to meeting insurance brokers to explore business opportunities and creating partnerships together.   Book your meeting slot now!

by Sheena Court

Wed 24 Feb 21 | News
  Hot off the press, this Spring edition features all the latest news from Legal Protection Group. including product news, team profiles and a review of the latest 'Meet the Market' event. Spring 2021 Edition

by Sheena Court

Thu 11 Mar 21 | News
  Hot off the press, this Spring edition features all the latest news from Legal Protection Group. including product news, team profiles and a review of the latest 'Meet the Market' event. Spring 2021 Edition

by Sheena Court

Thu 11 Mar 21 | News
Another month has flown by and already it is time for the March edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  Once more, we bring you the very latest in legal updates and judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding.  Highlights this month are the judgment relating to litigation funding and Security for Costs as well as the Court of Appeal overturning a High Court decision to make no order for costs.       So read on for the details on these and the other key topics in this edition of ATEMatters. As always we welcome your feedback and do get in touch if you need any assistance with ATE Insurance or Litigation Funding.   ATEMatters March 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 16 Mar 21 | News
Another month has flown by and already it is time for the March edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  Once more, we bring you the very latest in legal updates and judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding.  Highlights this month are the judgment relating to litigation funding and Security for Costs as well as the Court of Appeal overturning a High Court decision to make no order for costs.       So read on for the details on these and the other key topics in this edition of ATEMatters. As always we welcome your feedback and do get in touch if you need any assistance with ATE Insurance or Litigation Funding.   ATEMatters March 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 16 Mar 21 | News
As we tiptoe towards the new ‘normal’, one constant in the world of litigation is the availability of fresh legal decisions and case judgments.  As always, we are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters with our take on six of the latest key updates which are well worth a read. I’m sure DBAs are going to grow in demand and as such we will see an increase in issues develop in respect of their use.  This month we bring you two recent decisions of note relating to their use as a client retainer and in conjunction with third-party funding.  The following updates will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in injury litigation.  We highlight the application of the long-standing ‘Bolam’ test to disprove breach and causation in a negligence claim and look at the use of Part 36 as an “offer on the basis of accepted liability”.  Finally in this edition we would like to remind you of changes to CPR 36 and Practice Directive 47 which both came into effect on 6th April. Our thanks to Professor David Chalk of University of Winchester for his invaluable assistance with ATEMatters and, as always, do get in touch if you have any comments or would like advice on any aspect of ATE insurance or third-party funding. ATEMatters April 2021

by Sheena Court

Wed 14 Apr 21 | News
As we tiptoe towards the new ‘normal’, one constant in the world of litigation is the availability of fresh legal decisions and case judgments.  As always, we are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters with our take on six of the latest key updates which are well worth a read. I’m sure DBAs are going to grow in demand and as such we will see an increase in issues develop in respect of their use.  This month we bring you two recent decisions of note relating to their use as a client retainer and in conjunction with third-party funding.  The following updates will be of interest to any of your colleagues involved in injury litigation.  We highlight the application of the long-standing ‘Bolam’ test to disprove breach and causation in a negligence claim and look at the use of Part 36 as an “offer on the basis of accepted liability”.  Finally in this edition we would like to remind you of changes to CPR 36 and Practice Directive 47 which both came into effect on 6th April. Our thanks to Professor David Chalk of University of Winchester for his invaluable assistance with ATEMatters and, as always, do get in touch if you have any comments or would like advice on any aspect of ATE insurance or third-party funding. ATEMatters April 2021

by Sheena Court

Wed 14 Apr 21 | News
This year is racing by and once more, LPG is delighted to bring you the latest ATEMatters with the freshest topics affecting the world of litigation.  We start this edition with a look at the ‘dark art’ of varying costs budgets and a failed attempt by the claimant.  As alluded to in a previous edition of ATEMatters, judgments regarding DBAs are growing exponentially as their use in litigation increases and thus, we conclude this month with a look at a case where once again the wording of the retainer comes under the spotlight.  We have two decisions relating to Part 36 offers to highlight however, sandwiched between is a fascinating case involving ‘fundamental dishonesty’ which I’m sure any injury litigation solicitors will find most interesting. ATEMatters May 2021  

by Sheena Court

Thu 13 May 21 | News
This year is racing by and once more, LPG is delighted to bring you the latest ATEMatters with the freshest topics affecting the world of litigation.  We start this edition with a look at the ‘dark art’ of varying costs budgets and a failed attempt by the claimant.  As alluded to in a previous edition of ATEMatters, judgments regarding DBAs are growing exponentially as their use in litigation increases and thus, we conclude this month with a look at a case where once again the wording of the retainer comes under the spotlight.  We have two decisions relating to Part 36 offers to highlight however, sandwiched between is a fascinating case involving ‘fundamental dishonesty’ which I’m sure any injury litigation solicitors will find most interesting. ATEMatters May 2021  

by Sheena Court

Thu 13 May 21 | News
After a damp and dreary May, it’s wonderful to see a June ‘heatwave’.  No doubt many will take the opportunity to work from the garden but, if like me, you need to escape in doors to avoid too much sun, why not grab a refreshing drink and sit back with the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group.   We start this month with an interesting judgment centred on the claimant’s liability following alleged fundamental deliberate breach of a contract.  Next up, the first COVID judgment I have personally come across and one relating to the effect of regulations on rental payments.  If you or any of your colleagues undertake CFA work, Bell v Brabners [2021] EWHC 560 (QB) is a key decision in favour of the acting solicitor firm regarding their ability and rights to terminate a CFA.  We finish off this edition with a look at CPR 47.20(3) and its bearing on costs reduction at detailed assessment followed by a decision giving us the answer to the question “When does the limitation period commence?”. As always please do get in touch if we can help with any matters relating to ATE or funding. Until next month, enjoy the sun but stay safe.   ATEMatters June 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 15 Jun 21 | News
After a damp and dreary May, it’s wonderful to see a June ‘heatwave’.  No doubt many will take the opportunity to work from the garden but, if like me, you need to escape in doors to avoid too much sun, why not grab a refreshing drink and sit back with the latest edition of ATE Matters from Legal Protection Group.   We start this month with an interesting judgment centred on the claimant’s liability following alleged fundamental deliberate breach of a contract.  Next up, the first COVID judgment I have personally come across and one relating to the effect of regulations on rental payments.  If you or any of your colleagues undertake CFA work, Bell v Brabners [2021] EWHC 560 (QB) is a key decision in favour of the acting solicitor firm regarding their ability and rights to terminate a CFA.  We finish off this edition with a look at CPR 47.20(3) and its bearing on costs reduction at detailed assessment followed by a decision giving us the answer to the question “When does the limitation period commence?”. As always please do get in touch if we can help with any matters relating to ATE or funding. Until next month, enjoy the sun but stay safe.   ATEMatters June 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 15 Jun 21 | News
If ever there was an excuse to escape your desk (wherever it may be) and enjoy a few minutes in the sun, then the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group is it.  This month’s newsletter gives you the perfect opportunity for a ‘bite-size’ update on the most recent and key judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding. We start with a look at two consecutive decisions from the Supreme Court which have set out the approach taken when considering the scope of duty of care relating to Clinical and Professional Negligence claims.  Some very useful guidance next on revising a costs budget on the basis of a ‘significant development’.  Two Part 36 updates this month and two very interesting circumstances relating to split trials and nominal offers to settle.  Finally, the question of solicitor own costs recovery, over and above the success fee cap, has raised its head once more and the decision in the case of SGI Legal v Karatysz [2021] is well worth a read. As always, our thanks to Professor David Chalk and so please let us know if you have any comments on ATEMatters. Until next month, stay safe and feel free to get in touch if you require any assistance with ATE insurance or funding. ATEMatters July 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Jul 21 | News
If ever there was an excuse to escape your desk (wherever it may be) and enjoy a few minutes in the sun, then the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group is it.  This month’s newsletter gives you the perfect opportunity for a ‘bite-size’ update on the most recent and key judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding. We start with a look at two consecutive decisions from the Supreme Court which have set out the approach taken when considering the scope of duty of care relating to Clinical and Professional Negligence claims.  Some very useful guidance next on revising a costs budget on the basis of a ‘significant development’.  Two Part 36 updates this month and two very interesting circumstances relating to split trials and nominal offers to settle.  Finally, the question of solicitor own costs recovery, over and above the success fee cap, has raised its head once more and the decision in the case of SGI Legal v Karatysz [2021] is well worth a read. As always, our thanks to Professor David Chalk and so please let us know if you have any comments on ATEMatters. Until next month, stay safe and feel free to get in touch if you require any assistance with ATE insurance or funding. ATEMatters July 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Jul 21 | News
Not much sunshine in August so far however the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group is sure to brighten your day.  Once again, we look at five of the recent key decisions/judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding starting with an interesting case centred on the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitor undertakings.  Discretion regarding Part 36 costs consequences and a case involving champerty are next in line.  We take a look at the judgment on the liability faced by other partners following fraud and finish this edition with a case, which will be of interest to your Clinical Negligence colleagues, centred on the discretion applicable to the issue of limitation. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments or if we can be of any assistance regarding your ATE insurance and/or funding arrangement. ATEMatters August 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Aug 21 | News
Not much sunshine in August so far however the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group is sure to brighten your day.  Once again, we look at five of the recent key decisions/judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding starting with an interesting case centred on the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over solicitor undertakings.  Discretion regarding Part 36 costs consequences and a case involving champerty are next in line.  We take a look at the judgment on the liability faced by other partners following fraud and finish this edition with a case, which will be of interest to your Clinical Negligence colleagues, centred on the discretion applicable to the issue of limitation. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments or if we can be of any assistance regarding your ATE insurance and/or funding arrangement. ATEMatters August 2021

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Aug 21 | News
The summer is nearly over, the kids are back at school and days are starting to shortern so it is high time we brought you the latest edition of Legal Protection Group News. This edition focuses on this week's Southampton Boat show and highlights the range of policies we have that are specifically designed for the marine industry. Read more Legal Protection Group Newsletter Summer 2021    

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Sep 21 | News
The summer is nearly over, the kids are back at school and days are starting to shortern so it is high time we brought you the latest edition of Legal Protection Group News. This edition focuses on this week's Southampton Boat show and highlights the range of policies we have that are specifically designed for the marine industry. Read more Legal Protection Group Newsletter Summer 2021    

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Sep 21 | News
The summer is nearly over, the kids are back at school, but as we watch with horror as the shop shelves start to fill with Halloween and Christmas stuff, at least there is the latest edition of ATE Matters to help you take your mind off it all for a few minutes. This month we start with a key case considering the issues of vicarious liability and non-delegable duty, in this instance, relating to a dental practice over negligence by Associate Dentists.  Our next judgement, which could equally apply to a clinical negligence matter, deals with the outcome of an alleged instance of “Expert Shopping”.  Two commercial case decisions next up with one focusing on third party costs orders and the second relating to economic duress.  Finally in this edition we look at PD 57AC, in particular its impact on opinion evidence in witness statements.   ATEMatters September 2021

by Sheena Court

Wed 15 Sep 21 | News
The summer is nearly over, the kids are back at school, but as we watch with horror as the shop shelves start to fill with Halloween and Christmas stuff, at least there is the latest edition of ATE Matters to help you take your mind off it all for a few minutes. This month we start with a key case considering the issues of vicarious liability and non-delegable duty, in this instance, relating to a dental practice over negligence by Associate Dentists.  Our next judgement, which could equally apply to a clinical negligence matter, deals with the outcome of an alleged instance of “Expert Shopping”.  Two commercial case decisions next up with one focusing on third party costs orders and the second relating to economic duress.  Finally in this edition we look at PD 57AC, in particular its impact on opinion evidence in witness statements.   ATEMatters September 2021

by Sheena Court

Wed 15 Sep 21 | News
Halloween is nearly upon us, and the world of litigation and funding can be just as unnerving sometimes.  Luckily, the latest edition of ATEMatters is here to help you chase away the spectre of confusion with our update on the most recent and important legal judgments and decisions.  So, grab a pumpkin latte (or any suitable beverage of choice) and settle back to take a brief time-out with ATEMatters. ATEMatters October 2021

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Oct 21 | News
Halloween is nearly upon us, and the world of litigation and funding can be just as unnerving sometimes.  Luckily, the latest edition of ATEMatters is here to help you chase away the spectre of confusion with our update on the most recent and important legal judgments and decisions.  So, grab a pumpkin latte (or any suitable beverage of choice) and settle back to take a brief time-out with ATEMatters. ATEMatters October 2021

by Sheena Court

Thu 14 Oct 21 | News
  We are exhibiting at this year's Broker Expo in Coventry on 11th November 2021.  Please join us on stand 93 to discuss all your legal expenses requirements.

by Sheena Court

Thu 21 Oct 21 | News
  We are exhibiting at this year's Broker Expo in Coventry on 11th November 2021.  Please join us on stand 93 to discuss all your legal expenses requirements.

by Sheena Court

Thu 21 Oct 21 | News
Any successful business is underpinned by great staff who are encouraged and committed to promoting a positive culture. Legal Protection Group is nothing without the people within it. Having cemented ourselves as a serious legal expenses’ provider in just 5 years of trading and, supported by incredibly ambitious and supportive shareholders, we are embarking upon an incredibly exciting phase for our business. We are ultimately aiming to become the ‘go to’ company for a wide range of products, genuine flexibility and a team that believes in delivering unrivalled service. With that in mind, we are announcing some significant and exciting changes to our Senior Management Team. Andy Westall has been promoted to the role Chief Operating Officer, Martin Bex has been promoted to Sales & Marketing Director and Neil McDermott steps up to Underwriting Director. They join Martin Rowan, CEO and Clare Wright, Operations Director to complete the Senior Management Team. Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, commented, ‘This is an impressive combination of legal expenses talent. I am pleased to have been able to recognise achievement and promote from within. I look forward to working with this new team on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months and years. Ultimately, we want our introducers and their clients to have the best possible experience they can when using us and these promotions are made with that ethos firmly in mind.’

by Sheena Court

Thu 04 Nov 21 | News
Any successful business is underpinned by great staff who are encouraged and committed to promoting a positive culture. Legal Protection Group is nothing without the people within it. Having cemented ourselves as a serious legal expenses’ provider in just 5 years of trading and, supported by incredibly ambitious and supportive shareholders, we are embarking upon an incredibly exciting phase for our business. We are ultimately aiming to become the ‘go to’ company for a wide range of products, genuine flexibility and a team that believes in delivering unrivalled service. With that in mind, we are announcing some significant and exciting changes to our Senior Management Team. Andy Westall has been promoted to the role Chief Operating Officer, Martin Bex has been promoted to Sales & Marketing Director and Neil McDermott steps up to Underwriting Director. They join Martin Rowan, CEO and Clare Wright, Operations Director to complete the Senior Management Team. Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, commented, ‘This is an impressive combination of legal expenses talent. I am pleased to have been able to recognise achievement and promote from within. I look forward to working with this new team on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months and years. Ultimately, we want our introducers and their clients to have the best possible experience they can when using us and these promotions are made with that ethos firmly in mind.’

by Sheena Court

Thu 04 Nov 21 | News
With the nights drawing in and the weather on the turn, everyone needs something to look forward to.  Luckily, LPG have come to the rescue with the latest edition of ATE Matters! A real mixed bag this month starting with some guidance on Practice Direction 57AC.  Our offering on Part 36 is well worth a read especially given the resulting 30% decrease in costs awarded.  Litigation privilege comes under the spotlight in Scipharm Sarl v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to determine the disclosure of solicitor attendance notes.  The last two this month will be of interest to any of you or your colleagues involved with injury work.  Fundamental dishonesty has always been a ‘grey’ area ever since the introduction of the LASPO act and our next update highlights just how muddy the waters can be.  Finally, an interesting case dealing with an accident abroad and the ability to serve out of jurisdiction. As always, do let us know if you have any comments, queries or just want to know more about ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. Stay safe out there. ATEMatters November 2021  

by Sheena Court

Tue 23 Nov 21 | News
With the nights drawing in and the weather on the turn, everyone needs something to look forward to.  Luckily, LPG have come to the rescue with the latest edition of ATE Matters! A real mixed bag this month starting with some guidance on Practice Direction 57AC.  Our offering on Part 36 is well worth a read especially given the resulting 30% decrease in costs awarded.  Litigation privilege comes under the spotlight in Scipharm Sarl v Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust to determine the disclosure of solicitor attendance notes.  The last two this month will be of interest to any of you or your colleagues involved with injury work.  Fundamental dishonesty has always been a ‘grey’ area ever since the introduction of the LASPO act and our next update highlights just how muddy the waters can be.  Finally, an interesting case dealing with an accident abroad and the ability to serve out of jurisdiction. As always, do let us know if you have any comments, queries or just want to know more about ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. Stay safe out there. ATEMatters November 2021  

by Sheena Court

Tue 23 Nov 21 | News
It’s a brand new year and already time for the first edition of ATE Matters.  We start 2022 with some key decisions affecting the world of litigation and our first offering is worthy of note, being centred on the Norwich Pharmacal principle and the impact on requests for disclosure of information.  Kent v Apple Inc. is an absolute must read!  Here we have a crucial decision regarding the disclosure of ATE insurance premiums and whether, by doing so, the defendant would receive an ‘unfair tactical advantage’ by revealing the insurer’s assessment of the risk.  The following three updates in this edition you may wish to share with any of your colleagues involved with injury litigation.  CPR20 and 19 come under the spotlight next followed by another case decision looking at ATE premiums alongside overall deductions for costs from client damages.  We finish off this month with the liability outcome on a case we first brought you this time last year: Toombes v Mitchell.   ATEMatters January 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 18 Jan 22 | News
It’s a brand new year and already time for the first edition of ATE Matters.  We start 2022 with some key decisions affecting the world of litigation and our first offering is worthy of note, being centred on the Norwich Pharmacal principle and the impact on requests for disclosure of information.  Kent v Apple Inc. is an absolute must read!  Here we have a crucial decision regarding the disclosure of ATE insurance premiums and whether, by doing so, the defendant would receive an ‘unfair tactical advantage’ by revealing the insurer’s assessment of the risk.  The following three updates in this edition you may wish to share with any of your colleagues involved with injury litigation.  CPR20 and 19 come under the spotlight next followed by another case decision looking at ATE premiums alongside overall deductions for costs from client damages.  We finish off this month with the liability outcome on a case we first brought you this time last year: Toombes v Mitchell.   ATEMatters January 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 18 Jan 22 | News
February is upon us already and so it is time for the latest edition of ATEMatters.  In our first offering this month, we look at a case, brought by a solicitor firm against a former client, on the basis they failed in their duty of good faith resulting in a breach of contract.  We can never get away from the ubiquitous Part 36 judgment and this edition we have two for your perusal.  In O’Grady v B15 Group, the Doctrine of Mistake is in the spotlight whilst London Trocadero v Picturehouse Cinemas considers a ‘genuine offer to settle’.  One for our injury solicitors next with a look at the outcome of three conjoined appeals dealing with secondary victim.  Finally this month we highlight a key outcome of a costs assessment where the claimant’s solicitors hourly rate was brought into question due to their reliance on external assistance in the running of the claim.  As always, please do get in contact with us if you have any comments or would like advice or assistance regarding anything to do with commercial litigation insurance and funding. ATEMatters February 2022

by Sheena Court

Thu 10 Feb 22 | News
February is upon us already and so it is time for the latest edition of ATEMatters.  In our first offering this month, we look at a case, brought by a solicitor firm against a former client, on the basis they failed in their duty of good faith resulting in a breach of contract.  We can never get away from the ubiquitous Part 36 judgment and this edition we have two for your perusal.  In O’Grady v B15 Group, the Doctrine of Mistake is in the spotlight whilst London Trocadero v Picturehouse Cinemas considers a ‘genuine offer to settle’.  One for our injury solicitors next with a look at the outcome of three conjoined appeals dealing with secondary victim.  Finally this month we highlight a key outcome of a costs assessment where the claimant’s solicitors hourly rate was brought into question due to their reliance on external assistance in the running of the claim.  As always, please do get in contact with us if you have any comments or would like advice or assistance regarding anything to do with commercial litigation insurance and funding. ATEMatters February 2022

by Sheena Court

Thu 10 Feb 22 | News
March is upon us already and it is time for the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month we bring you Professor David Chalk’s views on the latest key decisions and judgments affe

by Sheena Court

Wed 16 Mar 22 | News
March is upon us already and it is time for the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month we bring you Professor David Chalk’s views on the latest key decisions and judgments affe

by Sheena Court

Wed 16 Mar 22 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  The doctrine of Champerty takes the headline act this month following the judgment on assignment of a case from client to solicitor firm.  The long running saga of Bott & Co. v Ryanair now appears to have come to conclusion and this is a Supreme Court decision and a case history well worth a read.  Colley v MIB is another case of interest which considers the latter’s obligations following the ab initio void of a car insurance policy for misrepresentation.  Next up a case I have personally been keeping a close eye on and one with, once again, a Part 36 offer under the spotlight.  Finally in this edition we look into the muddy pool of Fundamental Dishonesty and its application in relation to a litigant in person. ATEMatters April 2022  

by Sheena Court

Wed 20 Apr 22 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  The doctrine of Champerty takes the headline act this month following the judgment on assignment of a case from client to solicitor firm.  The long running saga of Bott & Co. v Ryanair now appears to have come to conclusion and this is a Supreme Court decision and a case history well worth a read.  Colley v MIB is another case of interest which considers the latter’s obligations following the ab initio void of a car insurance policy for misrepresentation.  Next up a case I have personally been keeping a close eye on and one with, once again, a Part 36 offer under the spotlight.  Finally in this edition we look into the muddy pool of Fundamental Dishonesty and its application in relation to a litigant in person. ATEMatters April 2022  

by Sheena Court

Wed 20 Apr 22 | News
  The latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group, brings you our view on the latest key legal judgments and decisions we think anyone involved with litigation and costs funding should be taking note of.     This month we highlight cases involving: - An example of the ‘Denton’ test in practice regarding notice of funding and success fees - The appropriateness of issue based costs following a preliminary trial - Seeking a contribution to a professional negligence settlement from a third party - The burden of proof when it comes to mitigating loss - The production of documents referred to in a witness statement   As always, if you have any comments on ATEMatters or would like to discuss anything to do with ATE insurance and case funding, please do get in touch as we are only too happy to assist if possible. ATEMatters May 2022

by Sheena Court

Thu 12 May 22 | News
  The latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group, brings you our view on the latest key legal judgments and decisions we think anyone involved with litigation and costs funding should be taking note of.     This month we highlight cases involving: - An example of the ‘Denton’ test in practice regarding notice of funding and success fees - The appropriateness of issue based costs following a preliminary trial - Seeking a contribution to a professional negligence settlement from a third party - The burden of proof when it comes to mitigating loss - The production of documents referred to in a witness statement   As always, if you have any comments on ATEMatters or would like to discuss anything to do with ATE insurance and case funding, please do get in touch as we are only too happy to assist if possible. ATEMatters May 2022

by Sheena Court

Thu 12 May 22 | News
What better way to enjoy the current sunshine than to grab a cold drink and take a break with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month our cup overfloweth with a refreshing mix of key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and legal costs funding including:   The Court’s powers when it comes to relief from sanctions A really useful review of case law regarding ATE insurance and Deeds of Indemnity as a means to satisfy security for costs applications Whether it is champertous for a law firm to indemnify a client’s adverse costs The impact derived from the late acceptance of a Part 36 offer Proposed CPR changes to QOCS   As always please do get in touch if you have any queries, comments or just need to talk through anything to do with ATE insurance or funding. Until next month, enjoy the sunshine while it lasts! ATEMatters June 2022  

by Sheena Court

Tue 21 Jun 22 | News
What better way to enjoy the current sunshine than to grab a cold drink and take a break with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  This month our cup overfloweth with a refreshing mix of key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and legal costs funding including:   The Court’s powers when it comes to relief from sanctions A really useful review of case law regarding ATE insurance and Deeds of Indemnity as a means to satisfy security for costs applications Whether it is champertous for a law firm to indemnify a client’s adverse costs The impact derived from the late acceptance of a Part 36 offer Proposed CPR changes to QOCS   As always please do get in touch if you have any queries, comments or just need to talk through anything to do with ATE insurance or funding. Until next month, enjoy the sunshine while it lasts! ATEMatters June 2022  

by Sheena Court

Tue 21 Jun 22 | News
The key to dealing with extreme heat is to stay hydrated and slow down.  What better excuse is needed to grab an ice cold drink and settle back with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group. We start this month with a recent high profile Clinical Negligence case centred on consent to deduct unrecoverable costs from damages.  Next up is an unusual one and not one we would normally include however the background to the case and the resulting impact on a ‘strike out’ application make it worth bringing to your attention.  Refusal to mediate and the impact on costs brings us back on track followed by a really key case judgment involving ATE insurance, litigation funding and ultimate costs liability.  Well worth taking note of!  Finally this edition, we bring to your attention the CJC’s establishment of a costs working group which has invited responses to its recently published consultation paper.  A link is included for you to access all the relevant details. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments on ATEMatters or if we can help with any aspect of ATE insurance or legal costs funding. Until next month, stay safe and stay cool. ATEMatters July 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 19 Jul 22 | News
The key to dealing with extreme heat is to stay hydrated and slow down.  What better excuse is needed to grab an ice cold drink and settle back with the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group. We start this month with a recent high profile Clinical Negligence case centred on consent to deduct unrecoverable costs from damages.  Next up is an unusual one and not one we would normally include however the background to the case and the resulting impact on a ‘strike out’ application make it worth bringing to your attention.  Refusal to mediate and the impact on costs brings us back on track followed by a really key case judgment involving ATE insurance, litigation funding and ultimate costs liability.  Well worth taking note of!  Finally this edition, we bring to your attention the CJC’s establishment of a costs working group which has invited responses to its recently published consultation paper.  A link is included for you to access all the relevant details. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments on ATEMatters or if we can help with any aspect of ATE insurance or legal costs funding. Until next month, stay safe and stay cool. ATEMatters July 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 19 Jul 22 | News
We are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  We can’t guarantee it will cool you down but it will give you an excuse to ‘chill’ for ten minutes. This month we kick off with a look at the latest with a case we first brought to your attention in May 21 dealing with the enforceability of DBAs when used by defendants.  Having lost at the Court of Appeal, this time round the solicitors were seeking a legal charge.  Not to be left out, we consider the first of two cases relating to the use of CFAs as retainer where we revisit a case from ATEMatters Feb22 dealing with the duty of good faith owed by a client.  “Can a previously agreed costs agreement be set aside by the High Court?” is the question posed in Jones v Richard Slade whilst the second of two cases dealing with CFAs looks at the background leading to a client being awarded US$1.6m due to the unenforceability of a law firm’s retainer.  Finally in this edition, it has been confirmed the disclosure pilot, applicable to existing and new matters in the Business and Property Courts, has been given the green light and will become permanent from 1st October 2022. As always, do please get in touch if we can assist in anyway regarding your requirements for ATE insurance and/or disbursements funding. Until next month, stay cool and may it rain soon.   ATEMatters August 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 16 Aug 22 | News
We are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group.  We can’t guarantee it will cool you down but it will give you an excuse to ‘chill’ for ten minutes. This month we kick off with a look at the latest with a case we first brought to your attention in May 21 dealing with the enforceability of DBAs when used by defendants.  Having lost at the Court of Appeal, this time round the solicitors were seeking a legal charge.  Not to be left out, we consider the first of two cases relating to the use of CFAs as retainer where we revisit a case from ATEMatters Feb22 dealing with the duty of good faith owed by a client.  “Can a previously agreed costs agreement be set aside by the High Court?” is the question posed in Jones v Richard Slade whilst the second of two cases dealing with CFAs looks at the background leading to a client being awarded US$1.6m due to the unenforceability of a law firm’s retainer.  Finally in this edition, it has been confirmed the disclosure pilot, applicable to existing and new matters in the Business and Property Courts, has been given the green light and will become permanent from 1st October 2022. As always, do please get in touch if we can assist in anyway regarding your requirements for ATE insurance and/or disbursements funding. Until next month, stay cool and may it rain soon.   ATEMatters August 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 16 Aug 22 | News
Legal Protection Group are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters with our pick of the latest key judgments and decision affecting the world of litigation and funding. This month we start with a case considering the court’s power to order disclosure of documents to a client bringing a claim for negligence.  An application to strike out witness statements which resulted in a total costs bill of over £270k is next under the spotlight followed by two cases dealing with the subject of Part 36 offer acceptance.  Finally this month, one for your injury litigation colleagues, a case involving an ex-Premier League footballer and the issue of ‘burden of proof’ in his Clinical Negligence claim. As always do please get in touch if you have any comments regarding ATE Matters or need any assistance with ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. ATEMatters September 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Sep 22 | News
Legal Protection Group are delighted to bring you the latest edition of ATE Matters with our pick of the latest key judgments and decision affecting the world of litigation and funding. This month we start with a case considering the court’s power to order disclosure of documents to a client bringing a claim for negligence.  An application to strike out witness statements which resulted in a total costs bill of over £270k is next under the spotlight followed by two cases dealing with the subject of Part 36 offer acceptance.  Finally this month, one for your injury litigation colleagues, a case involving an ex-Premier League footballer and the issue of ‘burden of proof’ in his Clinical Negligence claim. As always do please get in touch if you have any comments regarding ATE Matters or need any assistance with ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. ATEMatters September 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 20 Sep 22 | News
Welcome to the ‘spook-tacular’ Halloween edition of ATEMatters where you can ‘trick or treat’ yourself to our take on the latest key judgments and decisions affecting all things litigation.  Make sure you share our ‘eerie-sistible’ ATEMatters with all your colleagues to give you all  ‘pumpkin’ to talk about. We start this month with a decision to hit a claimant with indemnity costs due to a ‘serious’ breach of the rules surrounding their witness statements.  “What is the duty of care owed to a client following engagement prior to entering into a formal retainer?” is the question posed in Miller v Irwin Mitchell LLP.  A judgment concerning deductions from client damages is next under the spotlight followed by a Judge’s refusal to standby an argument to cap assessment costs. Finally this month, two jointly heard appeal decisions relating to credit hire charges which I’m sure will be of interest to any colleagues involved in RTA work. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments on ATEMatters or would like to discuss anything to do with Commercial ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding. Until next month, we’d like to ‘witch’ you a ‘fang-tastic’ Halloween. ATEMatters October 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 18 Oct 22 | News
Welcome to the ‘spook-tacular’ Halloween edition of ATEMatters where you can ‘trick or treat’ yourself to our take on the latest key judgments and decisions affecting all things litigation.  Make sure you share our ‘eerie-sistible’ ATEMatters with all your colleagues to give you all  ‘pumpkin’ to talk about. We start this month with a decision to hit a claimant with indemnity costs due to a ‘serious’ breach of the rules surrounding their witness statements.  “What is the duty of care owed to a client following engagement prior to entering into a formal retainer?” is the question posed in Miller v Irwin Mitchell LLP.  A judgment concerning deductions from client damages is next under the spotlight followed by a Judge’s refusal to standby an argument to cap assessment costs. Finally this month, two jointly heard appeal decisions relating to credit hire charges which I’m sure will be of interest to any colleagues involved in RTA work. As always, please do get in touch if you have any comments on ATEMatters or would like to discuss anything to do with Commercial ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding. Until next month, we’d like to ‘witch’ you a ‘fang-tastic’ Halloween. ATEMatters October 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 18 Oct 22 | News
We are pleased to introduce a new specialist insurance solution to the UK conveyancing market.   LPG, which launched in 2016 as a challenger MGA in the ancillary insurance market, will now offer a comprehensive range of conveyancing and property related insurances under the direction of the newly appointed Director of Property Services, Jonathan Woodcraft. Jonathan has over 30 years’ experience in the conveyancing market and now we’re bringing that experience to you - along with some revolutionary ideas of our own. Product and services are complementary across the ranges, enabling us to offer a complete insurance solution for conveyancing clients. As such, we can offer you everything from Title Insurance to Abortive Transaction Insurance and from Contingent Building Insurance and Environmental cover to Home Emergency cover.  And more. We are excited about this new chapter which will enable us to build on our successful ancillary insurance business and further develop and deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward.   With innovative features and state of the art technology we are absolutely focused on providing a market leading proposition to solicitors, conveyancers, search companies and their clients. In short, everything conveyancing protection should be but isn’t. Until now! To find out how we can help you and your clients please get in touch.

by Sheena Court

Tue 01 Nov 22 | News
We are pleased to introduce a new specialist insurance solution to the UK conveyancing market.   LPG, which launched in 2016 as a challenger MGA in the ancillary insurance market, will now offer a comprehensive range of conveyancing and property related insurances under the direction of the newly appointed Director of Property Services, Jonathan Woodcraft. Jonathan has over 30 years’ experience in the conveyancing market and now we’re bringing that experience to you - along with some revolutionary ideas of our own. Product and services are complementary across the ranges, enabling us to offer a complete insurance solution for conveyancing clients. As such, we can offer you everything from Title Insurance to Abortive Transaction Insurance and from Contingent Building Insurance and Environmental cover to Home Emergency cover.  And more. We are excited about this new chapter which will enable us to build on our successful ancillary insurance business and further develop and deliver even more creative and innovative products and services going forward.   With innovative features and state of the art technology we are absolutely focused on providing a market leading proposition to solicitors, conveyancers, search companies and their clients. In short, everything conveyancing protection should be but isn’t. Until now! To find out how we can help you and your clients please get in touch.

by Sheena Court

Tue 01 Nov 22 | News
We are pleased to announce that Jonathan Woodcraft has joined LPG to spearhead a unique proposal for the conveyancing market based on technology, long standing relationships and product range. Jonathan brings a wealth of knowledge and experience spanning over 30 years in property, finance and legal markets, including The Woolwich, Bristol & West, and most recently Stewart Title, with which LPG will continue to partner. Jonathan aims to establish a new division for LPG, bringing together complementary products to create a market leader in providing all types of insurance to the conveyancing sector. Commenting on his appointment, Jonathan said “The LPG team impressed me with their focus on providing first class products and their ambitions for growth. Access to their existing product range and newly developed technology is a real game changer for this industry. The team has already demonstrated it has the capability to build a company from the ground up and to join them on this journey is very exciting.” Martin Rowan, CEO said, “Jonathan has exceptional experience and it’s fantastic to see another talented and well-regarded expert choose LPG. Jonathan has a deep understanding of the conveyancing industry and his focus on creating a business that has the needs of the market at its heart will be a great asset to our expanding business.  With innovative features and state of the art technology we are absolutely focused on providing a market leading proposition to solicitors, conveyancers, search companies and their clients.” 

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Nov 22 | News
We are pleased to announce that Jonathan Woodcraft has joined LPG to spearhead a unique proposal for the conveyancing market based on technology, long standing relationships and product range. Jonathan brings a wealth of knowledge and experience spanning over 30 years in property, finance and legal markets, including The Woolwich, Bristol & West, and most recently Stewart Title, with which LPG will continue to partner. Jonathan aims to establish a new division for LPG, bringing together complementary products to create a market leader in providing all types of insurance to the conveyancing sector. Commenting on his appointment, Jonathan said “The LPG team impressed me with their focus on providing first class products and their ambitions for growth. Access to their existing product range and newly developed technology is a real game changer for this industry. The team has already demonstrated it has the capability to build a company from the ground up and to join them on this journey is very exciting.” Martin Rowan, CEO said, “Jonathan has exceptional experience and it’s fantastic to see another talented and well-regarded expert choose LPG. Jonathan has a deep understanding of the conveyancing industry and his focus on creating a business that has the needs of the market at its heart will be a great asset to our expanding business.  With innovative features and state of the art technology we are absolutely focused on providing a market leading proposition to solicitors, conveyancers, search companies and their clients.” 

by Sheena Court

Wed 02 Nov 22 | News
Legal Protection Group are delighted to bring you the November edition of ATEMatters.  As always, our latest edition contains the most recent and most important legal updates, judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding so read on for our take on:   The applicable principles when dealing with solicitor client costs at detailed assessment; The current ‘hot topic’ being Belsner v Cam Legal Services and the decision affecting deduction from damages; Following on from Belsner, having been heard concurrently, the decision in Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP relating to “amount of the bill”; A judgment for your injury litigation colleagues to take note of, looking at the impact of QOCS on mixed claims; Finally this month, the Clinical Negligence matter of Riley v Salford Royal NHS Trust and an interesting take on mitigation of loss. If you have any comments on thoughts on ATEMatters, we would love to hear them and of course, if you need any assistance with or have any queries on Commercial litigation ATE insurance and funding, please do get in touch.   ATEMatters November 2022

by Sheena Court

Thu 17 Nov 22 | News
Legal Protection Group are delighted to bring you the November edition of ATEMatters.  As always, our latest edition contains the most recent and most important legal updates, judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding so read on for our take on:   The applicable principles when dealing with solicitor client costs at detailed assessment; The current ‘hot topic’ being Belsner v Cam Legal Services and the decision affecting deduction from damages; Following on from Belsner, having been heard concurrently, the decision in Karatysz v SGI Legal LLP relating to “amount of the bill”; A judgment for your injury litigation colleagues to take note of, looking at the impact of QOCS on mixed claims; Finally this month, the Clinical Negligence matter of Riley v Salford Royal NHS Trust and an interesting take on mitigation of loss. If you have any comments on thoughts on ATEMatters, we would love to hear them and of course, if you need any assistance with or have any queries on Commercial litigation ATE insurance and funding, please do get in touch.   ATEMatters November 2022

by Sheena Court

Thu 17 Nov 22 | News
We are pleased to announce that James Jobling has joined Legal Protection Group in the newly  created role of Product & Marketing Director, ATE.   James has vast experience of advising on the structure and placement of ATE Insurance and working with Underwriters to develop bespoke ATE Insurance products.   Having been in the Commercial Litigation ATE Insurance market since 2008, he originally created and established the ATE Insurance offering at Marsh and he was then recruited to lead the Business Development & Sales Strategy for leading ATE Insurer, AmTrust International. His network consists of Law Firms, Insurers, Insurance Brokers, Litigation Funders, and Insolvency Practitioners, across a variety of jurisdictions. James joins the current ATE Team of Richard Whale, Alison Heard and Ashok Bansal. Commenting on his appointment, James said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, said “James’s knowledge and experience further strengthens our ATE team and I look forward to working with him on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months."

by Sheena Court

Wed 07 Dec 22 | News
We are pleased to announce that James Jobling has joined Legal Protection Group in the newly  created role of Product & Marketing Director, ATE.   James has vast experience of advising on the structure and placement of ATE Insurance and working with Underwriters to develop bespoke ATE Insurance products.   Having been in the Commercial Litigation ATE Insurance market since 2008, he originally created and established the ATE Insurance offering at Marsh and he was then recruited to lead the Business Development & Sales Strategy for leading ATE Insurer, AmTrust International. His network consists of Law Firms, Insurers, Insurance Brokers, Litigation Funders, and Insolvency Practitioners, across a variety of jurisdictions. James joins the current ATE Team of Richard Whale, Alison Heard and Ashok Bansal. Commenting on his appointment, James said “I’m really pleased to have been offered this opportunity and I am looking forward to working with the great team at Legal Protection Group.” Martin Rowan, CEO of Legal Protection Group, said “James’s knowledge and experience further strengthens our ATE team and I look forward to working with him on the many new and exciting developments that we are planning over the coming months."

by Sheena Court

Wed 07 Dec 22 | News
Welcome to the final edition of #ATEMatters for 2022.  Before the festive bug completely takes over, settle down in front of a roaring log fire with a glass or two of mulled wine, and savour this month’s gift from Legal Protection Group containing the key decisions and judgments affecting the world of all things litigation. To get you in the mood, we start off this month with a Court of Appeal decision which clarifies whether litigation privilege extends to the identity of individuals giving instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client.  A bit of further clarity regarding Service of Claim by electronic means next followed by two decisions related to recovery of CFA success fees and disclosure of information about ATE insurance premiums.  Finally in this edition, it looks like the long journey, which started with Coventry v Lawrence, may be coming to the end of the road. As always, please do get in contact if you have any comments on #ATEMatters or would like information on anything to do with ATE insurance or funding. That just leaves us all at LPG to wish you a very Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.   ATEMatters December 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 13 Dec 22 | News
Welcome to the final edition of #ATEMatters for 2022.  Before the festive bug completely takes over, settle down in front of a roaring log fire with a glass or two of mulled wine, and savour this month’s gift from Legal Protection Group containing the key decisions and judgments affecting the world of all things litigation. To get you in the mood, we start off this month with a Court of Appeal decision which clarifies whether litigation privilege extends to the identity of individuals giving instructions to solicitors on behalf of a corporate client.  A bit of further clarity regarding Service of Claim by electronic means next followed by two decisions related to recovery of CFA success fees and disclosure of information about ATE insurance premiums.  Finally in this edition, it looks like the long journey, which started with Coventry v Lawrence, may be coming to the end of the road. As always, please do get in contact if you have any comments on #ATEMatters or would like information on anything to do with ATE insurance or funding. That just leaves us all at LPG to wish you a very Happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year.   ATEMatters December 2022

by Sheena Court

Tue 13 Dec 22 | News
Happy New Year and all of us at LPG wish you a very successful and profitable one at that!  Talking of which, welcome to the first edition of #ATEMatters for 2023 where our good friend, David Chalk, gives us his thoughts on the latest key topics, decisions and judgments affecting the world of Commercial and other litigation and funding. We start this month with a very interesting look at the effect of taking security for solicitor costs on their entitlement to equitable lien.  An appeal hearing next following a decision an application for detailed costs assessment was time-barred given it was made more than a year after costs had been paid.  This edition is finished off with three case judgments all involving the ubiquitous issue of Part 36. As always, please do get in contact if you have any comments on #ATEMatters or would like any assistance with ATE insurance or litigation funding. As an aside, if you know of any colleagues running or looking to run Business Energy and/or other undisclosed commission claims, do please ask them to get in touch as we would love the opportunity to have a chat about how we may be able to help. ATEMatters January 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Jan 23 | News
Happy New Year and all of us at LPG wish you a very successful and profitable one at that!  Talking of which, welcome to the first edition of #ATEMatters for 2023 where our good friend, David Chalk, gives us his thoughts on the latest key topics, decisions and judgments affecting the world of Commercial and other litigation and funding. We start this month with a very interesting look at the effect of taking security for solicitor costs on their entitlement to equitable lien.  An appeal hearing next following a decision an application for detailed costs assessment was time-barred given it was made more than a year after costs had been paid.  This edition is finished off with three case judgments all involving the ubiquitous issue of Part 36. As always, please do get in contact if you have any comments on #ATEMatters or would like any assistance with ATE insurance or litigation funding. As an aside, if you know of any colleagues running or looking to run Business Energy and/or other undisclosed commission claims, do please ask them to get in touch as we would love the opportunity to have a chat about how we may be able to help. ATEMatters January 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Jan 23 | News
LPG is delighted to bring you the February edition of #ATEMatters highlighting our take on the latest and greatest judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding.  We start this month with a costs decision on a case involving two defendants and issues related to CFA validity and joint defendant costs budgeting.  The Court of Appeal decision in our next case is one any of your colleagues involved with injury cases will be interested in as we consider the effect on QOCS of discontinuing on the day of trial.  When the Whiplash Injury Regulations were introduced in 2021, mixed injury claims resulted as being a bit of a ‘grey’ area.  The outcome of the much anticipated appeals in Rabot v. Hassam and Briggs v. Laditan  now gives us some valuable guidance on tariff and non-tariff injuries.  Does amending a claim to include Personal Injury impact QOCS?  This was the question faced by the appeal Judge at the High Court in Pathan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.  Finally this month, a decision looking at a Cerebral Palsy case and the battle between an application for interim payment and the defendant’s subsequent application for further budgeting. As always, we appreciate any feedback we receive on #ATEMatters so please do get in touch if you have any comments or would like to discuss anything relating to ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. ATEMatters February 2023

by Sheena Court

Wed 15 Feb 23 | News
LPG is delighted to bring you the February edition of #ATEMatters highlighting our take on the latest and greatest judgments and decisions affecting the world of litigation and funding.  We start this month with a costs decision on a case involving two defendants and issues related to CFA validity and joint defendant costs budgeting.  The Court of Appeal decision in our next case is one any of your colleagues involved with injury cases will be interested in as we consider the effect on QOCS of discontinuing on the day of trial.  When the Whiplash Injury Regulations were introduced in 2021, mixed injury claims resulted as being a bit of a ‘grey’ area.  The outcome of the much anticipated appeals in Rabot v. Hassam and Briggs v. Laditan  now gives us some valuable guidance on tariff and non-tariff injuries.  Does amending a claim to include Personal Injury impact QOCS?  This was the question faced by the appeal Judge at the High Court in Pathan v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.  Finally this month, a decision looking at a Cerebral Palsy case and the battle between an application for interim payment and the defendant’s subsequent application for further budgeting. As always, we appreciate any feedback we receive on #ATEMatters so please do get in touch if you have any comments or would like to discuss anything relating to ATE insurance and/or litigation funding. ATEMatters February 2023

by Sheena Court

Wed 15 Feb 23 | News
Spring is nearly upon us so fingers crossed for some better weather to come.  We can’t do much about the rain and snow but we can brighten your day with the latest edition of #ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group. We start this month with an interesting case dealing with Practice Direction 57AC and a good example of why ATE providers don’t like cases relying on oral evidence.  There is a lot going on with QOCS at present so PME v Scout Association and the issue regarding a capped CFA is well worth a read.  We consider two case next dealing with the quality of expert evidence, disregard of duty and an attempt to withdraw a full admission of liability.  Finally this month, and if you haven’t already done so, a change to the CPR provisions everyone should familiarise themselves with. As always, we welcome your feedback and do let us know if we can be of any assistance regarding your requirements for ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding. ATEMatters March 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Mar 23 | News
Spring is nearly upon us so fingers crossed for some better weather to come.  We can’t do much about the rain and snow but we can brighten your day with the latest edition of #ATEMatters from Legal Protection Group. We start this month with an interesting case dealing with Practice Direction 57AC and a good example of why ATE providers don’t like cases relying on oral evidence.  There is a lot going on with QOCS at present so PME v Scout Association and the issue regarding a capped CFA is well worth a read.  We consider two case next dealing with the quality of expert evidence, disregard of duty and an attempt to withdraw a full admission of liability.  Finally this month, and if you haven’t already done so, a change to the CPR provisions everyone should familiarise themselves with. As always, we welcome your feedback and do let us know if we can be of any assistance regarding your requirements for ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding. ATEMatters March 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 14 Mar 23 | News
Left out in the cold by your Home Emergency Provider?

by Sheena Court

Thu 16 Mar 23 | News
Left out in the cold by your Home Emergency Provider?

by Sheena Court

Thu 16 Mar 23 | News
Summer officially starts tomorrow so to welcome it in, we are delighted to bring you the latest ‘sizzling’ edition of #ATEMatters.  This month we look in detail at three recent key decisions affecting the world of litigation  A client’s failed attempt to avoid paying £144k in outstanding solicitor fees based on their interpretation of the client retainer; What the situation is regarding success fees where clients have been added a privacy GLO book after recoverability was removed; Whether it is relevant to have a breakdown of medical reporting organisations invoices at costs assessment. As always do please let us have any comments on #ATEMatters as feed back is important to us and do get in touch if you have any queries or need assistance with anything to do with ATE insurance and /or funding.

by Sheena Court

Wed 28 Jun 23 | News
Summer officially starts tomorrow so to welcome it in, we are delighted to bring you the latest ‘sizzling’ edition of #ATEMatters.  This month we look in detail at three recent key decisions affecting the world of litigation  A client’s failed attempt to avoid paying £144k in outstanding solicitor fees based on their interpretation of the client retainer; What the situation is regarding success fees where clients have been added a privacy GLO book after recoverability was removed; Whether it is relevant to have a breakdown of medical reporting organisations invoices at costs assessment. As always do please let us have any comments on #ATEMatters as feed back is important to us and do get in touch if you have any queries or need assistance with anything to do with ATE insurance and /or funding.

by Sheena Court

Wed 28 Jun 23 | News
The weather may not quite be what we want for the start of the summer holidays but to brighten your day, LPG brings you the latest edition of #ATEMatters.  So read on for this month’s take on the key decisions and judgments in and around the world of litigation we’d like to bring to your attention including: An appeal decision focused on the assessment of solicitor costs following deduction of fees from settlement funds; An attempt to deduct base costs and success fee shortfall from client damages; ‘Non-progressive’ costs of litigation; and Confirmation that recent QOCS changes regarding set-off are not retrospective.   Do please get in touch of you have any comments on #ATEMatters or would like to discuss any aspect of ATE insurance and/or legal costs and disbursements funding.   ATEMatters July 2023

by Sheena Court

Wed 26 Jul 23 | News
The weather may not quite be what we want for the start of the summer holidays but to brighten your day, LPG brings you the latest edition of #ATEMatters.  So read on for this month’s take on the key decisions and judgments in and around the world of litigation we’d like to bring to your attention including: An appeal decision focused on the assessment of solicitor costs following deduction of fees from settlement funds; An attempt to deduct base costs and success fee shortfall from client damages; ‘Non-progressive’ costs of litigation; and Confirmation that recent QOCS changes regarding set-off are not retrospective.   Do please get in touch of you have any comments on #ATEMatters or would like to discuss any aspect of ATE insurance and/or legal costs and disbursements funding.   ATEMatters July 2023

by Sheena Court

Wed 26 Jul 23 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of #ATEMatters from LPG. No preamble this month as, if your firm has or does use third-party litigation funding, you need to jump right in and read up on the recent Supreme Court decision on the unenforceability of funding agreements. If you have any queries or concerns regarding litigation funding, please do get in touch. ATEMatters August 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 15 Aug 23 | News
Welcome to the latest edition of #ATEMatters from LPG. No preamble this month as, if your firm has or does use third-party litigation funding, you need to jump right in and read up on the recent Supreme Court decision on the unenforceability of funding agreements. If you have any queries or concerns regarding litigation funding, please do get in touch. ATEMatters August 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 15 Aug 23 | News
We are pleased to announce that we have appointed Ian Montague to the newly created role of Head of Risk and Compliance. With nearly 30 years’ experience of risk management and regulatory compliance, Ian brings expertise and a strategic perspective developed at some of the UK’s leading insurance companies with experience of implementing risk frameworks, integrating acquired firms and managing outsourcing and third-party relationships. Ian excels at distilling regulatory complexity into pragmatic solutions to drive growth, resilience, and positive outcomes. His strategic mindset, focus on consumer outcomes and stakeholder management will be invaluable as we continue to expand our business.

by Sheena Court

Wed 23 Aug 23 | News
We are pleased to announce that we have appointed Ian Montague to the newly created role of Head of Risk and Compliance. With nearly 30 years’ experience of risk management and regulatory compliance, Ian brings expertise and a strategic perspective developed at some of the UK’s leading insurance companies with experience of implementing risk frameworks, integrating acquired firms and managing outsourcing and third-party relationships. Ian excels at distilling regulatory complexity into pragmatic solutions to drive growth, resilience, and positive outcomes. His strategic mindset, focus on consumer outcomes and stakeholder management will be invaluable as we continue to expand our business.

by Sheena Court

Wed 23 Aug 23 | News
The summer holiday season has come and gone, the kids are back at school and the shops filling with Halloween and Christmas decorations, at least you can rely on #ATEMatters for a bit of normality.  Our latest edition takes a look at the key legal decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation this month including:   Guidance on the Denton test The ubiquitous Part 36 decision The consequences of an unenforceable CFA Power to extend Limitation   As always, do please get in touch if you have any queries at all regarding ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding. ATEMatters September 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 19 Sep 23 | News
The summer holiday season has come and gone, the kids are back at school and the shops filling with Halloween and Christmas decorations, at least you can rely on #ATEMatters for a bit of normality.  Our latest edition takes a look at the key legal decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation this month including:   Guidance on the Denton test The ubiquitous Part 36 decision The consequences of an unenforceable CFA Power to extend Limitation   As always, do please get in touch if you have any queries at all regarding ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding. ATEMatters September 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 19 Sep 23 | News
LPG is pleased to bring you the October edition of #ATEMatters with our take on the most recent legal decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding.  This month’s headline is another in a recent run of cases relating to the unenforceability of CFAs.  As always, we have a range of cases to highlight so read on for the rest of this edition’s ‘hot’ topics. For any assistance regarding commercial ATE or legal costs funding, please get I touch as we are always only too pleased to help.   ATEMatters October 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Oct 23 | News
LPG is pleased to bring you the October edition of #ATEMatters with our take on the most recent legal decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding.  This month’s headline is another in a recent run of cases relating to the unenforceability of CFAs.  As always, we have a range of cases to highlight so read on for the rest of this edition’s ‘hot’ topics. For any assistance regarding commercial ATE or legal costs funding, please get I touch as we are always only too pleased to help.   ATEMatters October 2023

by Sheena Court

Tue 17 Oct 23 | News
We may be beginning to count down the days until the festive season but the world of litigation never stops.  As always, LPG are delighted to bring you our latest #ATEMatters.  This month we have four key decisions for you to take a look at with particular emphasis on the case of Therium Litigation Funding v Bugsby Property LLC and the enforceability of funding agreements. As always, please do get in touch if you have any queries regarding #ATEMatters or ATE and Funding. ATEMatters November 2023  

by Sheena Court

Tue 21 Nov 23 | News
We may be beginning to count down the days until the festive season but the world of litigation never stops.  As always, LPG are delighted to bring you our latest #ATEMatters.  This month we have four key decisions for you to take a look at with particular emphasis on the case of Therium Litigation Funding v Bugsby Property LLC and the enforceability of funding agreements. As always, please do get in touch if you have any queries regarding #ATEMatters or ATE and Funding. ATEMatters November 2023  

by Sheena Court

Tue 21 Nov 23 | News
With the festive break fast approaching, LPG are delighted to bring you the final #ATEMatters of 2023.  In this edition, we focus on four recent judgments we feel you should be aware of starting with a key decision regarding the amendment of funding agreements to maintain enforceability.  Two questions posed next regarding the powers of a Court to evaluate evidence or force ADR.  Finally this month, an attempt by defendants to strike an additional claim on the basis the original claim had been settled. As always we welcome your feedback on #ATEMatters and naturally, please do get in touch if we can help in anyway regarding ATE insurance or funding queries. That just leaves it for all of us at LPG to wish you a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. ATEMatters December 2023

by Sheena Court

Wed 13 Dec 23 | News
With the festive break fast approaching, LPG are delighted to bring you the final #ATEMatters of 2023.  In this edition, we focus on four recent judgments we feel you should be aware of starting with a key decision regarding the amendment of funding agreements to maintain enforceability.  Two questions posed next regarding the powers of a Court to evaluate evidence or force ADR.  Finally this month, an attempt by defendants to strike an additional claim on the basis the original claim had been settled. As always we welcome your feedback on #ATEMatters and naturally, please do get in touch if we can help in anyway regarding ATE insurance or funding queries. That just leaves it for all of us at LPG to wish you a very happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year. ATEMatters December 2023

by Sheena Court

Wed 13 Dec 23 | News
Happy New Year and welcome to the first edition of #ATEMatters of 2024 bringing you our take on the latest key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding.  Boodia v Richard Slade is the latest in a long running solicitor/client costs saga and the latest High Court decision addresses the client’s latest challenge.  In Sellers v Simpkins. A CFA ‘Lite’ is under the spotlight and whether a costs cap remains applicable if the client terminates the retainer.  The Court’s decision on the potential costs consequences as a result of the relationship between Part 36 and s70 costs assessment is well worth a look and then we finish this month with a judgment on a case your injury litigation colleagues may be interested in.   As always, do please get in touch if you have any queries or require assistance on anything to do with ATE insurance and/or funding. If you or any of your colleagues are in the market for ATE insurance for Commercial, Financial Mis-Selling or Housing Disrepair claims, we can help. ATEMatters January 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 17 Jan 24 | News
Happy New Year and welcome to the first edition of #ATEMatters of 2024 bringing you our take on the latest key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and funding.  Boodia v Richard Slade is the latest in a long running solicitor/client costs saga and the latest High Court decision addresses the client’s latest challenge.  In Sellers v Simpkins. A CFA ‘Lite’ is under the spotlight and whether a costs cap remains applicable if the client terminates the retainer.  The Court’s decision on the potential costs consequences as a result of the relationship between Part 36 and s70 costs assessment is well worth a look and then we finish this month with a judgment on a case your injury litigation colleagues may be interested in.   As always, do please get in touch if you have any queries or require assistance on anything to do with ATE insurance and/or funding. If you or any of your colleagues are in the market for ATE insurance for Commercial, Financial Mis-Selling or Housing Disrepair claims, we can help. ATEMatters January 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 17 Jan 24 | News
It was about time we updated our photos - some of us have lost most of our hair since they were last officially taken!   You will notice some new faces - bringing new knowledge and experience, and yet many you already know (and love!) and who have formed the core of LPG since the early days. There have been many changes to LPG over the years but there is one fundamental that has never changed and that is the ability to recognise the needs of our customers and respond accordingly.  And access to knowledgeable staff who have the autonomy and experience to make decisions is key - the very same staff that you see in these photographs today.  As we continue to grow and evolve the business, this key objective remains – we will be large and diverse enough to deliver, yet small enough to still care. If you aren’t already a partner, why not give us a call and experience the LPG difference today. LPG - a flexible approach to insurance, protection and assistance.

by Sheena Court

Wed 07 Feb 24 | News
It was about time we updated our photos - some of us have lost most of our hair since they were last officially taken!   You will notice some new faces - bringing new knowledge and experience, and yet many you already know (and love!) and who have formed the core of LPG since the early days. There have been many changes to LPG over the years but there is one fundamental that has never changed and that is the ability to recognise the needs of our customers and respond accordingly.  And access to knowledgeable staff who have the autonomy and experience to make decisions is key - the very same staff that you see in these photographs today.  As we continue to grow and evolve the business, this key objective remains – we will be large and diverse enough to deliver, yet small enough to still care. If you aren’t already a partner, why not give us a call and experience the LPG difference today. LPG - a flexible approach to insurance, protection and assistance.

by Sheena Court

Wed 07 Feb 24 | News
Have you ever considered the benefits of Home Buyers Protection Insurance?In the realm of real estate transactions, unforeseen circumstances can often lead to complications, leaving both buyers and sellers vulnerable to financial losses and legal complexities. In such instances, having adequate protection in place is crucial to mitigate risks and ensure smoother proceedings.Find out why law firms should strongly consider recommending to their clients is Home Buyers Protection Insurance in our new paper -  Enhancing Legal Transactions, Why Law Firms Should Recommend Home Buyers Protection Insurance.   Enhancing Legal Transactions

by Sheena Court

Thu 08 Feb 24 | News
Have you ever considered the benefits of Home Buyers Protection Insurance?In the realm of real estate transactions, unforeseen circumstances can often lead to complications, leaving both buyers and sellers vulnerable to financial losses and legal complexities. In such instances, having adequate protection in place is crucial to mitigate risks and ensure smoother proceedings.Find out why law firms should strongly consider recommending to their clients is Home Buyers Protection Insurance in our new paper -  Enhancing Legal Transactions, Why Law Firms Should Recommend Home Buyers Protection Insurance.   Enhancing Legal Transactions

by Sheena Court

Thu 08 Feb 24 | News
2024 seems to have started with a rush and it’s already time for the February edition of #ATEMatters.  Our look this month at the latest key legal decisions and judgments starts with a very important case for anyone involved with litigation funding and or DBAs.  This latest PACCAR decision gives us some clarity on the validity of revising agreements and is a must read.   The case of Miller v Irwin Mitchell LLP is next up and the CoA judgment regarding Duty of Care followed by a look at the fallout from serving Proceedings by email.  Finally this month, a dive into CPR 3.9 and the Relief from Sanctions rules.   As always, do please get in touch if you have any comments regarding #ATEMatters or assistance with anything to do with ATE insurance or funding.  If you have any colleagues involved in Financial Mis-Selling or HDR claims, do please pass on our details as we would welcome the opportunity for a chat on what we can offer.   ATEMatters February 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Feb 24 | News
2024 seems to have started with a rush and it’s already time for the February edition of #ATEMatters.  Our look this month at the latest key legal decisions and judgments starts with a very important case for anyone involved with litigation funding and or DBAs.  This latest PACCAR decision gives us some clarity on the validity of revising agreements and is a must read.   The case of Miller v Irwin Mitchell LLP is next up and the CoA judgment regarding Duty of Care followed by a look at the fallout from serving Proceedings by email.  Finally this month, a dive into CPR 3.9 and the Relief from Sanctions rules.   As always, do please get in touch if you have any comments regarding #ATEMatters or assistance with anything to do with ATE insurance or funding.  If you have any colleagues involved in Financial Mis-Selling or HDR claims, do please pass on our details as we would welcome the opportunity for a chat on what we can offer.   ATEMatters February 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 21 Feb 24 | News
Just in time for Spring, LPG are delighted to deliver the latest instalment of #ATEMatters with our take on recent key decisions and judgments from the world of litigation and funding.  We start this month with a look at a Supreme Court decision setting out the legal principles applicable to negligence claims relating to damage to physical property. If your firm uses Litigation Funding then Topalsson v Rolls Royce is a definite read given the judgment regarding disclosure. DBAs still remain a bit of a grey area and next up is a decision centred on unenforceability of an agreement due to a breach of the rules. Finally this edition, we consider whether, if you terminate a CFA and claim damages for breach by the client, you are entitled to bill the client for costs and disbursements incurred? Please do get in touch if you have any comments regarding #ATEMatters or would like to discuss anything to do with ATE insurance and/or funding.   ATEMatters March 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 20 Mar 24 | News
Just in time for Spring, LPG are delighted to deliver the latest instalment of #ATEMatters with our take on recent key decisions and judgments from the world of litigation and funding.  We start this month with a look at a Supreme Court decision setting out the legal principles applicable to negligence claims relating to damage to physical property. If your firm uses Litigation Funding then Topalsson v Rolls Royce is a definite read given the judgment regarding disclosure. DBAs still remain a bit of a grey area and next up is a decision centred on unenforceability of an agreement due to a breach of the rules. Finally this edition, we consider whether, if you terminate a CFA and claim damages for breach by the client, you are entitled to bill the client for costs and disbursements incurred? Please do get in touch if you have any comments regarding #ATEMatters or would like to discuss anything to do with ATE insurance and/or funding.   ATEMatters March 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 20 Mar 24 | News
Today’s Conveyancer today highlights the staggering cost of fall-throughs in the UK residential property market. LPG’s comprehensive buyer and seller protection products offer a buffer against the uncertainties plaguing the market. By safeguarding transactions with robust insurance coverage and legal assistance, they mitigate the financial toll of fall-throughs. Read more    

by Sheena Court

Tue 09 Apr 24 | News
Today’s Conveyancer today highlights the staggering cost of fall-throughs in the UK residential property market. LPG’s comprehensive buyer and seller protection products offer a buffer against the uncertainties plaguing the market. By safeguarding transactions with robust insurance coverage and legal assistance, they mitigate the financial toll of fall-throughs. Read more    

by Sheena Court

Tue 09 Apr 24 | News
If you have had enough of the April showers let the latest edition of #ATEMatters from LPG brighten up your day! First up, a recent judgment regarding disclosure of litigation funding arrangements and whether you need to.  A must read especially if you have funded cases without ATE insurance protection! The rather concerning Supreme Court decision taken which lead to UKSC 29 (PACCAR) has been reversed and the rules around litigation funding agreements are to be amended so again, well worth a read. The question of whether time spent at rehabilitation meetings is a recoverable cost is hopefully answered in Hadley v Przybylo and we finish off this month with an update on mixed injury claims which will be welcome to any of your colleagues involved in Personal Injury work. As always, do please let us know if you have any comments on #ATEMatters or ATE insurance and funding.  We are only to happy to try and assist or give advice. ATEMatters April 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 17 Apr 24 | News
If you have had enough of the April showers let the latest edition of #ATEMatters from LPG brighten up your day! First up, a recent judgment regarding disclosure of litigation funding arrangements and whether you need to.  A must read especially if you have funded cases without ATE insurance protection! The rather concerning Supreme Court decision taken which lead to UKSC 29 (PACCAR) has been reversed and the rules around litigation funding agreements are to be amended so again, well worth a read. The question of whether time spent at rehabilitation meetings is a recoverable cost is hopefully answered in Hadley v Przybylo and we finish off this month with an update on mixed injury claims which will be welcome to any of your colleagues involved in Personal Injury work. As always, do please let us know if you have any comments on #ATEMatters or ATE insurance and funding.  We are only to happy to try and assist or give advice. ATEMatters April 2024

by Sheena Court

Wed 17 Apr 24 | News
Title defects can be a homeowner's worst nightmare, causing stress, financial loss, and even legal battles. These defects can arise from a variety of issues such as errors in public records, undisclosed heirs, forged documents, or improperly executed legal documents. When purchasing a property, buyers typically rely on title insurance to protect against these defects. However, there is another valuable tool in mitigating these risks: legal indemnity insurance. Read more

by Sheena Court

Wed 08 May 24 | News
Title defects can be a homeowner's worst nightmare, causing stress, financial loss, and even legal battles. These defects can arise from a variety of issues such as errors in public records, undisclosed heirs, forged documents, or improperly executed legal documents. When purchasing a property, buyers typically rely on title insurance to protect against these defects. However, there is another valuable tool in mitigating these risks: legal indemnity insurance. Read more

by Sheena Court

Wed 08 May 24 | News
What better way to enjoy the current sunshine than to grab a cold drink of choice and take a break with the latest edition of ATEMatters from LPG! This month our glass overfloweth with a refreshing cocktail of key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and legal funding.  Included in the mix this month are: Multiple claimants and the use of single claim form and single proceedings Causation trumping Breach of Duty Disallowance, on assessment, of Leading Counsel’s fees An update on PACCAR CJC review of Litigation Funding Hopefully you find ATEMatters informative however if you have any comments, do please get in touch.  Also, we are always here to help if you have any queries at all regarding ATE Insurance and Litigation Funding. Enjoy the sunshine and let’s hope it lasts over the Bank Holiday! ATEMatters May 24  

by Sheena Court

Tue 21 May 24 | News
What better way to enjoy the current sunshine than to grab a cold drink of choice and take a break with the latest edition of ATEMatters from LPG! This month our glass overfloweth with a refreshing cocktail of key decisions and judgments affecting the world of litigation and legal funding.  Included in the mix this month are: Multiple claimants and the use of single claim form and single proceedings Causation trumping Breach of Duty Disallowance, on assessment, of Leading Counsel’s fees An update on PACCAR CJC review of Litigation Funding Hopefully you find ATEMatters informative however if you have any comments, do please get in touch.  Also, we are always here to help if you have any queries at all regarding ATE Insurance and Litigation Funding. Enjoy the sunshine and let’s hope it lasts over the Bank Holiday! ATEMatters May 24  

by Sheena Court

Tue 21 May 24 | News
They say good things come in threes so, with the excitement of an impending ‘heat wave’ and the Euros, LPG is delighted to bring you the latest edition of #ATEMatters to make your June complete. Alternate Dispute Resolution is at the forefront currently so we start this edition with a look at the potential cost consequences of failing to accept an offer of mediation.  Judgments related to QOCS have been thin on the ground recently but they bounce back this month with two decisions which are well worth examining.  Finally for June, we bring you two updates which are a must read for anyone who has, is or will be using litigation funding. As always, do please let us have any feedback and we are always here to assist if you have any queries on anything to do with ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding.   ATEMatters June 2024  

by Sheena Court

Wed 19 Jun 24 | News
They say good things come in threes so, with the excitement of an impending ‘heat wave’ and the Euros, LPG is delighted to bring you the latest edition of #ATEMatters to make your June complete. Alternate Dispute Resolution is at the forefront currently so we start this edition with a look at the potential cost consequences of failing to accept an offer of mediation.  Judgments related to QOCS have been thin on the ground recently but they bounce back this month with two decisions which are well worth examining.  Finally for June, we bring you two updates which are a must read for anyone who has, is or will be using litigation funding. As always, do please let us have any feedback and we are always here to assist if you have any queries on anything to do with ATE insurance and/or legal costs funding.   ATEMatters June 2024  

by Sheena Court

Wed 19 Jun 24 | News
Lovely weather, Perfect company and Great fun - just another LPG team building day! Thank you to everyone who joined us and made it such fun.

by Sheena Court

Tue 23 Jul 24 | News
Lovely weather, Perfect company and Great fun - just another LPG team building day! Thank you to everyone who joined us and made it such fun.

by Sheena Court

Tue 23 Jul 24 | News
Typical the summer ‘heatwave’ ends just as the holiday season is upon us however, in between packing, checking the forecast, trying to work out what to do with the kids or how to avoid other people’s, why not take a short break with LPG and read the July edition of #ATEMatters.   ATEMatters July 2024

by Sheena Court

Tue 23 Jul 24 | News
Typical the summer ‘heatwave’ ends just as the holiday season is upon us however, in between packing, checking the forecast, trying to work out what to do with the kids or how to avoid other people’s, why not take a short break with LPG and read the July edition of #ATEMatters.   ATEMatters July 2024

by Sheena Court

Tue 23 Jul 24 | News
Our Products Contact Us
  • BTE Insurance
  • Landlord Legal Protection
  • Landlord Legal and Rent Protection
  • Agent Revenue Protection
  • Residential Freeholder Legal Protection
  • Residential Landlord Emergency Assistance
  • Landlord Buildings and Contents
  • Key Protect
  • Excess Protection
  • Motor Breakdown Assistance (Personal and small commercial {up to 3.5 tonnes GVW})
  • Vehicle Assist(Personal)
  • Early Termination Insurance
  • Guaranteed Asset Protection
  • Private Motor Excess Protection
  • Commercial Legal Protection
  • Commercial Legal Protection Property Owners
  • Trade Association Legal Protection
  • Group and Affinity Legal Protection
  • Family Legal Protection
  • Home Emergency Assistance
  • Home Buyers’ Costs and Home Sellers’ Costs
  • Tenant Contents
  • Park and Leisure Home Legal Protection
  • Student Guarantor Protection
  • Tenant Deposit Legal Protection
  • Watercraft Legal Protection
  • Property Services
  • Title Insurance
  • New policies for Contingent Building Insurance and Environmental cover
  • Home Emergency Assistance
  • Key Protect
  • Home Buyers’ Costs and Home Sellers’ Costs
  • Tenant Contents
  • Excess Protection
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Lender Protection
  • Landlord Buildings Insurance

Legal Protection Group Limited, Trading as LPG, are an appointed representative of Riviera Insurance Services Limited, who are authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) under Firm Reference Number 786116. You may check this on the Financial Services Register by visiting the FCA website.

LPG is registered in England and Wales (Company Number 10096688). Registered address: 8 Pinkers Court, Gloucester Road, Rudgeway, Bristol BS35 3QH