McGraddie v McGraddie and Another (Scotland : Costs): SC 28 Jan 2015

The parties, father and son had fallen out. The father said that a property purhased by the son with money provided by the father, was held in trust for the father. The Court had rejected the argument of the son that this had been a gift. The parties now disputed the costs. The defender son having been assisted under legal aid, the father sought an order that the costs should be paid by the Scottish Legal Aid Board. The Board objected that the pursuer had taken out after the event legal costs insurance.
Held: While it does not ineluctably follow that an ATE premium should not be recoverable as part of the costs, it would be somewhat surprising if wholly different considerations applied to the recoverability of ATE and BTE premiums. The ATE premium was a sum incurred by the pursuer to enable or assist him to conduct the cause, to protect him against any potential liability for expenses as a result of conducting the cause, but it was not, as a matter of ordinary language, a sum incurred ‘for conducting the cause’.

Lord Neuberger, President, Lady Hale, Deputy President, Lord Reed
[2015] UKSC 1, 2015 SC (UKSC) 45, 2015 GWD 4-83, 2015 SLT 69, [2015] WLR(D) 36, [2015] 3 All ER 61, [2015] 2 Costs LO 235, [2015] 1 WLR 560
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD
See AlsoMcGraddie v McGraddie and Another SCS 13-Mar-2012
The defender appealed against rejection of his assertion that monies paid to him by his father was by way of gift.
Held: His appeal succeeded. The Lord Ordinary’s conclusions were ‘plainly wrong’ when he stated that he did not find any of the . .
CitedCallery v Gray (No 2) CA 31-Jul-2001
A plaintiff could recover the costs of insuring himself against the risk of having to pay the other sides costs, and finding his own costs irrecoverable (after the event or ATE insurance). The earlier case had decided that such premiums may be . .
CitedCallery v Gray (1) and (2) HL 27-Jun-2002
Success fees and ATE premiums were recoverable
Objection was made to a claimed uplift of 20% sought by the plaintiff’s solicitors. The defendant’s insurers said that there had been little at risk for them.
Held: The system of conditional fees insurance had been introduced to remedy defects . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Costs, Legal Aid

Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.541953