Judge: Irwin LJ and Coulson LJ
Citation:  EWCA Civ 1220
Disputes regarding the recoverability of ATE policy premiums, are not to be determined on the normal case-by-case basis; questions of reasonableness are settled at a macro level by reference to the general run of cases and the macro economics of the ATE insurance market. Assessment of the reasonableness of the premiums will normally require expert evidence (See also the summaries regarding the assessment of proportionality, and approach to detailed assessment).
“ It is accepted that the particular comments as to necessity need to be disregarded following the change in the law and the overruling of Lownds, but the Court of Appeal’s observations as to the inability of Judges, without the assistance of expert evidence, sensibly to address the reasonableness of the premium (except in very broad brush terms), and the risk to the whole market if they do, remain entirely relevant and appropriate.”
“ We derive the following principles from these authorities:
(1) Disputes about the reasonableness and recoverability of the ATE insurance premium are not to be decided on the usual case-by-case basis. Questions of reasonableness are settled at a macro level by reference to the general run of cases and the macro economics of the ATE insurance market, and not by reference to the facts in any specific case [McMenemy];
(2) Issues of reasonableness go beyond the dictates of a particular case and include the unavoidable characteristics of the ATE insurance market [Rogers];
(3) District Judges and Costs Judges do not have the expertise to judge the reasonableness of a premium, except in very broad brush terms, and the viability of the ATE market will be imperilled. If they regard themselves (without the assistance of expert evidence) as better qualified than the underwriter to rate the financial risk the insurer faces.
(4) It is for the paying party to raise a substantive issue as to the reasonableness of the premium which will generally only be capable of being resolved by way of expert evidence [Kris]”
“… that significantly overstates the legitimate role of the Costs Judge in dealing with such premiums and is contrary to the principles that we have identified in paragraph 56…”
The Assessors’ Findings
“ If the District Judge or Costs Judge decides that there is substantive evidence which genuinely puts in issue the reasonableness of a premium, then he or she can require the Claimant to address that evidence and decide the resulting debate on the evidence in the usual way.
We stress, however, that that should only happen if the Judge considers that a genuine point of substance, usually requiring expert evidence, has been raised by the paying party and not otherwise.
 On the basis of the assessors’ report in this case we consider that the issue of the reasonableness of ATE insurance premiums has, at least for the foreseeable future, been settled. That ought, therefore, to resolve the issue of their reasonableness in all or almost all of the other cases apparently waiting for the outcome of these appeals. We appreciate, of course, that in the future things may change.”
 SI 2013, No. 739
 See Lewison LJ in McMenemy v Peterborough & Stamford Hospitals NHS Trust  EWCA Civ 1941;  1 WLR 2685.
  EWCA Civ 1134;  1 WLR 808
  EWCA Civ 365;  1 WLR 2450
  EWHC 1008 (QB);  4 Costs LR 620