Sarwar v Alam: CA 19 Sep 2001

Litigation had followed an accident. The claimant, a passenger, sought and won damages for personal injuries. He had taken out legal expenses insurance, and at dispute was the recovery of the cost of that insurance. He had been unaware of having the insurance and had also paid out for after the event insurance. He sought to recover the costs of the legal expenses insurance. A challenge of a judge’s award in costs only proceedings should only rarely succeed. In such questions, the danger of conflicts of interest between the various insurance companies is real, and had been provided for in the regulations. Solicitors should inspect the client’s various policies to clarify what legal expenses insurance was available. The need to provide free choice of solicitors did not override common provisions for small cases referring such matters to insurance panel solicitors. In a case where a passenger sued his driver, it was not appropriate for his choice of solicitor to be determined by the defendant’s insurers, and after the event legal expenses insurance was a proper and reasonable expense and should be recoverable.


Judge Halbert, District Judge Wallace


Times 11-Oct-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1401, [2002] RTR 12, [2001] 4 All ER 541, [2002] 1 WLR 125, [2002] 1 Costs LR 37, [2002] Lloyd’ Rep IR 126, [2002] PIQR P15




Insurance Companies (Legal Expenses Insurance) Regulations 1990, Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, Civil Procedure Rules 44.12A


England and Wales


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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, Damages, Costs, Legal Professions, Insurance

Updated: 04 June 2022; Ref: scu.166184