Norwich Union told to 'pay out' after Callery costs appeal is dismissed by Lords

ACCUSATIONS: crusading claimant firm declares another victory against insurer

Norwich Union, the defendant insurer in Callery v Gray, and its solicitors have lost an attempt to escape a costs order for the recent House of Lords appeal, and were then told by the claimant solicitors that they should 'sit down, lick their wounds, and pay out'.

In a separate development, personal injury lawyers this week accused Norwich Union of trying the opposite argument to that used in Callery.

After the House of Lords rejected the Norwich Union appeal in Callery, the company appealed against the costs award to Manchester firm Amelans, the claimant's solicitors for the Lords appeal, saying there should be no award at all.

The application has been dismissed.

Amelans managing partner Andrew Twambley said: 'The Norwich Union made hopeless submissions that there should be no order for costs despite their lack of success...

If no costs had been awarded, a precedent would have been set and firms like Amelans would be discouraged from bringing test cases, which would be unjust to the public at large and a dilution of access to justice.'

He added: 'They should sit down, lick their wounds and pay out.'

Andrew Parker, the former president of the Forum for Insurance Lawyers and partner with City firm Beachcroft Wansbroughs, who acted for Norwich Union in the case, said: 'I'm not so sure that we did lose.

On paper there was no win in the Lords because the Lords expressed concern with the system.

They said it was not for them to sort out the problem and said that the Court of Appeal was the appropriate forum.

'While we accept the decision of the court, we do not follow the logic of what they [Amelans] are saying.

We took this case to the Court of Appeal and to the House of Lords so they were our test cases.

There will be further cases in the Court of Appeal.'

Meanwhile, solicitor Andrew Tilsiter, a partner with north-west London firm Harold Benjamin Littlejohn, said that in a recent case, Norwich Union queried the level of his client's premium, claiming that a cheaper policy could have been obtained earlier on.

Mr Tilsiter said: 'In Callery, Norwich Union argued that the policy was premature - they want to have it both ways.'

A spokesman for Hill Dickinson in Liverpool, which acted for Norwich Union in the case, declined to comment.

Jeremy Fleming