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

  • In a move that many observers will see as a victory against the increasing ‘stealth’ privatisation of the NHS, healthcare provider Circle is set to lose its contract to the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre, despite taking legal action to get the decision changed. Circle broke new ground in 2012 by becoming the first private and for profit healthcare business to be placed in charge of running an NHS hospital. Despite this contract, at Cambridgeshire’s Hinchingbrooke hospital, returning to NHS control in 2015 due to rising financial pressures, Circle had successfully run the Nottingham NHS Treatment Centre since 2008. Despite receiving high CQC ratings for patient satisfaction and having hit NHS targets for patient treatment, the firm – who claim to operate as a ‘John Lewis style social enterprise’ – lost the contract in April this year. Circle has been criticised for taking... Read More

  • A recent judgement at the High Court in London has seen the Post Office being ordered to pay over £5 million in legal costs resulting from its ongoing legal dispute with former Post Office workers. The legal action was bought by 557 former Post Office workers, many of whom were sub-postmasters, who claim that they were falsely blamed for financial shortfalls at various small Post Office branches throughout the UK. The former workers claim that a software error in the Post Office’s computer system – called Horizon – was responsible for the discrepancies which resulted in many staff losing their livelihoods. The claimant group includes Tracy Felstead, a former Post Office employee from Shropshire who in 2001 was jailed for six months after being convicted of stealing £11,500, and has always protested her innocence. The first trial, which opened in November... Read More

  • London’s Court of Appeal has ruled that a judge in a recent libel claim had ‘seriously transgressed’ the fundamental principle of neutrality and had ‘bullied’ a Litigant in Person (‘LIP’) whilst they were giving evidence at trial. The case in question, Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors, was a libel action involving a Polish language publication called Nowy Cza. The claimant was a LIP – meaning that he was representing himself rather than using a solicitor or barrister – and was giving evidence at the trial. The trial judge, Mr Justice Jay, was accused by the LIP of making: ..frequent gratuitous interjections during the trial, hostile to the claimant, putting the claimant under enormous pressure and making it extremely difficult for him to conduct the litigation”. The LIP’s plea was upheld at the Court of Appeal on three grounds: 1. That the judge’s conclusion that... Read More