![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) Decisions >> Dunn Motor Traction Ltd v National Express Ltd [2017] EWHC 228 (Comm) (15 February 2017) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2017/228.html Cite as: [2017] EWHC 228 (Comm) |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL COURT
Rolls Building, 7 Rolls Buildings Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Claimant/ Respondent |
|
- and - |
||
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Defendant/ Applicant |
____________________
Nathan Pillow QC and Emily Wood (instructed by Hogan Lovells International LLP) for the Defendant/Applicant
Hearing date: 9 February 2017
____________________
VERSION
OF JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Mr. Justice Teare :
"It is also to be recognised in my judgment that the funding of litigation by ATE policies is, and has for some years now, been a central feature of the ability of parties to gain access to justice. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the court's starting position should be that a properly drafted ATE policy provided by a substantial and reputable insurer is a reliable source of litigation funding. "
"Ultimately, on an application such as this, the question is not whether the assurance provided by an ATE policy is better security than cash or its equivalent, but whether there is reason to believe that the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant's costs despite the existence of the ATE policy. It must now be recognised, in my judgment, that depending upon the terms of the policy in question, an ATE policy may suffice so that the court is not satisfied that there is reason to believe that the claimant will be unable to pay the defendant's costs. "