Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Litigation Protection

The potential costs involved in resolving a commercial dispute vary greatly depending on whether a claim is successful or unsuccessful. If an action is successful, the costs involved will often be mitigated by a financial award. However, if an action is unsuccessful, the losing party may be ordered to pay the costs of those involved in the action.

Yet the risk and costs of losing a commercial claim needn't prevent an individual or a business from pursuing a claim that has a strong chance of success. There are many insurance products now available that can reduce, or remove, the costs of failing to win a commercial claim.

These products, which come under the broad term of 'After the Event' (ATE) insurance, offer a creative and bespoke method of protecting against the financial risks and liabilities involved in losing litigation.

After the Event Commercial Legal Expenses Insurance

'After the Event' (ATE) insurance provides extra protection against the risks involved in resolving a dispute through the courts. It covers the potential losses and costs incurred if a legal claim is unsuccessful. This means that many common commercial claims, whether they relate to recovering debt, professional negligence, commercial property, insolvency or breach of contract, can be brought without any of the initial costs.

Litigation insurance products such as ATE will often cover an opponent's costs if the claim fails, as well as those of the person pursuing legal action. This kind of insurance is therefore very valuable for any individual or business that wants the peace of mind that they will not be liable for an opponent's costs should their claim fail.

ATE insurance also has the added benefit that the premium is only payable when the case is over and the claim was successful. This is because the premium is expected to be paid from any settlement or damages that are awarded in the insured's favour.

The level of the premium payable on success will often depend on the type of cover sought and the risks involved in bringing a claim. It may be a percentage of the insured amount or of the costs incurred at the end of the case. It is possible to negotiate the terms and premium payable to reflect the particular circumstances of the claim.

Although the fees of an insured person's solicitor are not covered by ATE insurance, it can be possible to offset a solicitor's fees by entering into a no win, no fee or no win, low fee agreement. By doing so, someone who wishes to bring a claim will be safe in the knowledge that they will only have to pay the costs of a commercial claim if they are successful.

Litigation Insurance Experts

Advantage Litigation Services can help you find and apply for the right insurance product in a straightforward and efficient way. We can also help you obtain additional cover should you need it, or apply for cover to be backdated.

Contact our litigation insurance product specialists for a no-obligation assessment of your potential claim and the funding options that are available. Click here to contact us today or call 01252 354434 to see how we can help.

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), designers and manufacturers of Jaguar and Land Rover vehicles has recently announced that it has been successful with a legal action made in China for copyright infringement. The copyright claim was originally made by JLR in 2016 against Chinese manufacturer Jiangling Motors Corp, based on Jiangling’s design and manufacture of a vehicle that closely resembles the Range Rover Evoque. Even though the copying of designs by Chinese manufacturers is well known and widespread across many sectors including automotive, legal action is relatively rare as even with the legal resources that big brands can deploy, the prospects of success in Chinese courts is considered to be low. In addition, there can often be a perception amongst the Chinese public of their local manufacturers being ‘bullied’ by foreign brands, which can adversely affect sales. Last week the Beijing Chaoyang District Court... Read More

  • Huw Jenkins, former chairman of Championship football club Swansea City FC, is making a claim for damages based on alleged professional negligence against a firm of solicitors who had previously advised him during his divorce in 2017. Mr Jenkins was chairman of the Welsh club between January 2002 and February 2019, a period of great success for the side including promotion to the Premier League and a League Cup victory in 2013. The 56 year old’s claim for damages is against law firm John Collins & Partners LLP, who had previously advised him in 2011 that his finances were not sufficiently stable to reach to an appropriate financial settlement with his then-wife. Mr Jenkins and his former wife separated in February 2011 but the divorce was not finalised in 2017, during which time Swansea City’s promotion to the Premier League resulted... Read More

  • A recent judgement has seen a costs penalty of £80,000 imposed on the Ministry of Defence (MOD) following concerns over disclosure of information as part of a contract dispute case. The case in question, Serco v Secretary of State for Defence, saw judge Mr Justice Fraser award indemnity costs against the MOD following conduct in disclosure of information that was ‘well outside the norm’ and that the required information should have been provided on a voluntary basis by the MOD months before. The claim against the MOD was bought by Serco in June last year following the outsourcing giant’s concerns regarding how its £1.1bn bid for fire and rescue services was assessed. Serco had requested a variety of information from the MOD to provide insight as to why its bid for the 12 year contract had failed, including documentation giving reasons for... Read More