Report comment

The irony is that these claimants are also seeking, where applicable, the refund of ATE.

The basis presented was that there was no material costs risks which merited ATE so the solicitors in the underlying litigation should not have taken it out: yet these claims are proceeding where there is a very real (and costs being on the standard basis) risk where there is no ATE in place.

I have also been advised that the deductions from the claimant's recovery are also in % terms far greater than those deducted in the underlying claim.

Perhaps the Gazette could approach the claimant's solicitors for a response?