Court of Appeal rules third-party capture insurer still has to pay solicitors’ costs

Car accidents: case for equitable intervention

Car accidents: case for equitable intervention

The Court of Appeal has made a major strike against the practice of third-party capture by ordering an insurance company that settled personal injury claims directly with the clients of a law firm to pay the solicitors the costs they would have earned.

The court said Cheshire firm Gavin Edmondson Solicitors had an interest which equity could protect and which was “deserving of protection”. This meant Haven Insurance had to pay the RTA protocol fees that would have been due.

In doing so, it overturned the decision of HHJ Jarman QC in Wrexham, who had rejected the firm’s objections to the actions of Haven in settling six low-value road traffic claims so as to avoid paying legal fees.

In each case, the firm had signed up the client to a conditional fee agreement (CFA) based on the Law Society model and entered the matter on the RTA electronic portal. In four of the cases, Haven then wrote to the client with a settlement offer within seven days of the CFA being signed; in the other two, the offer was made a little later than seven days.

Giving the lead judgment, Lord Justice Lloyd Jones said that while Edmondsons had no right to recover fees from its clients under the terms of its client-care letter – which the court found trumped the CFA that said it could – “I consider that in the normal course of events Edmondson would have an entitlement to recover the fixed costs and other sums payable under the protocol scheme.

“This is either an entitlement in Edmondson itself or, alternatively, in the light of the contractual arrangement between Edmondson and its clients [the CFA said the firm could recover its fees from the client in the event the defendant did not pay] an entitlement to bring proceedings in the name of the clients to recover these sums.

“In either case, Edmondson has an interest which equity can protect and which is deserving of protection. It is an interest of which Haven was aware by virtue of its knowledge of and participation in the protocol scheme.”

There was also argument around the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008, which meant the claimants had the right to cancel his contract with the firm within seven days

The CFA included a waiver of this right if the client wanted the firm to start work immediately, which each signed. This appeared to be in breach of the regulations and though not argued, the judge proceeded on the assumption that the waiver was ineffective.

Lloyd Jones LJ said: “I consider that the fact that an offer may have been made at a time when a retainer was still cancellable or otherwise terminable cannot relieve Haven of liability. In each case, Haven, with knowledge of the existence of a CFA and that the claim was proceeding within the Protocol scheme, made an offer of settlement with no express limitation as to the period within which it could be accepted.”

Giving insurance companies a possible way out in future, he continued: “It would have been open to Haven to make the offer conditional on cancellation of Edmondson’s retainer within the permitted period but it did not do so.

“In each case Haven assumed the risk that its offer might be accepted after the expiry of the cancellation period. In the event, in none of the underlying cases was the retainer cancelled or otherwise terminated.”

Lords Justice Laws and Elias agreed.

    Readers Comments

  • Joseph says:

    The Company is aware of the decision of the Court of Appeal in this case, but cannot comment further. Haven will be seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court, as knowing the facts of this case, it does not accept the decision made is the correct one.

    Joseph O’Connell – Claims Manager. Haven Insurance Company Gibraltar.

  • Mr Payne in D'Nec says:

    How can it be that an Insurer can conduct its self in such a way when they are fully aware that the said lay persons are legally represented? This course of action smacks of double standards and as always the insurer will seek underhanded ways to ensure they minimise their financial exposure , how can those individuals be aware of the issues they may or may not have exposed themselves to, injuries on the face of it may not always be as obvious as they may seem and future complications could arise on what basis can such a practice be allowed God forbid that any of the Claimants had actually suffered further complications , my view is stop premed offers being made, if Osborne succeeds then rest assured this practice will cease !!

  • RW says:

    It is about time Haven got punished for their actions!

    On one of my cases they actually phoned up the claimant for his bank details so they could arrange a BACS payment into his account!

    Let us not forget either why they are based in Gibraltar. Firstly to take advantage of Tax avoidance and secondly, regulatory commitments are far less than here in the UK. This TORY government however, continues to sponge up to them not surprising really when you look how much the party gets from the insurance industry!

Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


30 March 2021

Judicial review reform: A risk to the courts’ post-Brexit standing

In addition to questions about the motivations for curbing legal challenges to political decisions, the proposed reforms to judicial review raise concerns about undermining the reputation of the English courts

Read More