This article, co-authored by Jamie Molloy (Ignite Specialty Risk), Chaya Hanoomanjee and Rachel Bright (Austen Hays), and originally published in the Jan-March 2025 edition of Corporate Disputes magazine, examines recent High Court judgements in Asertis v Bloch and Musst v Astra that address applications for security for costs where claimants utilised after the event insurance.
The contrasting outcomes illuminate critical considerations for litigation practitioners regarding ATE policies and anti-avoidance endorsement provisions. The analysis details specific deficiencies identified in the Asertis case alongside the successful elements in the Musst judgment, concluding with a practical checklist for practitioners to ensure their ATE insurance products provide adequate security. These cases underscore the established principle that security for costs applications will be determined through careful examination of the specific terms within each ATE policy.
Click here to access the article [link to pdf]
