Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Conditional Fee Agreements » Page 2

£50,000 COSTS INCURRED: £500,000 ALLOWED: HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

April 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision of Mr Justice Spencer in Bolt Burdon Solicitors -v- Tariq [2016] EWHC 811 (QB) is an interesting consideration of non contentious business agreements.” The judge found that an agreement which meant that the solicitors recovered 50% of the damages…

THE SOLICITOR, THE LIQUIDATOR AND THE CFA: STEVENSDRAKE THE JUDGMENT AT TRIAL

February 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

In Stevensdrake -v- Hunt [2016] EWHC 342 (Ch) His Honour Judge Simon Barker QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) decided that, despite the clear wording of a conditional fee agreement,  the defendant was not personally liable to…

MOVING FROM LEGAL AID TO CFAS: THE JUDGMENTS

February 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

NB see the appeals relating to these cases discussed here The cases surrounding the switch from legal aid to a CFA were reviewed  in my post earlier this week . The full transcripts are now available (I am grateful to Aaron Vodden…

MOVING FROM LEGAL AID TO CFAS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

February 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

NB see the appeals in relation to these issues discussed here . There have been recent developments in relation to the issue of the reasonableness of claimant solicitors moving from legal aid to conditional fee agreements. The first case upholds a…

CLAIMANT CAN RECOVER COSTS AGAINST A DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN THE CFA

December 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Engeham -v- London & Quadrant Housing Ltd & Academy of Plumbing Ltd (01/12/2015) * the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a consent order which stated that damages and costs were to be paid by a defendant not named…

COSTS, CFAS, ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES AND GOING OUTSIDE PUBLIC FUNDING 2: SURREY -v- BARNET & CHASE

September 4, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

See the appeal on this case discussed here.  The previous post looked at the decision of Master Rowley in Hyde -v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC B17 (Costs). In that case the Master decided that a decision to…

COSTS, CFAS, ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES AND GOING OUTSIDE PUBLIC FUNDING 1: HYDE -v- MILTON KEYNES

September 4, 2015 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

NB SEE THE APPEAL ON THESE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE The decision of Master Rowley in Hyde -v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC B17 (Costs) has today become available on Bailli. It contains important observations in relation to…

IF YOU ENTER INTO A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CLIENT ARE YOU PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE?

July 28, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Master Campbell in Addleshaw Goddard LLP  -v- Wood & Hellard [2015] EWHC B12 (Costs) has some interesting observations on contentious business agreements and the nature of litigation financing generally. THE CASE The claimant solicitors had entered into…

SUCCESS FEES : DEFECTIVE NOTICE OF FUNDING AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A WHOLE BUNDLE OF ISSUES

June 12, 2015 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The decision of Mr Justice Edis in O’Brien -v- Shorrock & the MIB [2015] EWHC 1630 (QB) deals with a number of important issues in relation to costs, notice of funding, the backdating of conditional fee agreements  and relief from sanctions. THE…

RECOVERY OF THE INSURANCE PREMIUM IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: 10 KEY POINTS

June 5, 2015 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content

The recent post on the decision in Nokes -v- Heart of England Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC B6 highlighted the issues relating to recoverability of the premium in clinical negligence cases.  Here is a 10 point summary: 1.  ONLY  THAT PART…

INVESTMENT BANK SPECIAL ADMINISTRATORS CANNOT USE CFAS: HIGH COURT DECISION

June 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

Today appears to be a day for exceptions.  An earlier post dealt with the remaining provisions whereby litigants can recover insurance premiums this post deals with the limited circumstances in which administrators can litigate and recover additional liabilities. The question…

← Previous 1 2

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 82: THE PROFOUND DANGERS OF AN EXPERT USING AI: “A SIGNIFICANT GAP BETWEEN THE VOICE AND OPINION OF THE EXPERT AND THE REPORT WHICH SHE HAS FILED”
  • SERVICE POINTS 58: ACCIDENT IN ENGLAND, CLAIMANTS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION REFUSED
  • EXPERT WATCH 81: EXPERT EVIDENCE ON APPEAL: COMPANY PERMITTED TO RELY ON IT EXPERT TO EXPLAIN WHY ITS DIRECTORS THOUGHT A REGULATOR’S EMAIL WAS A PHISHING ATTEMPT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: IN THE RUN UP TO HALLOWEEN: MISSIVES FROM THE BENCH (OCTOBER 2021): “THAT ONE’S HALF BLIND AND HALF DEAF. I CALL HIM THE COURT OF APPEAL…”
  • THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT PICK AND CHOOSE THE EVIDENCE IT PUTS BEFORE THE COURT: A WITNESS STATEMENT BREACHED THE DUTY OF CANDOUR OWED: WHAT YOU LEAVE OUT CAN SOMETIMES BE MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHAT YOU PUT IN…

Top Posts

CLAIMANT'S CLAIM AGAINST INSURER FAILS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD DECISION THAT THE INSURED'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
"THIS IS NOT THE MANNER IN WHICH AN APPLICATION SHOULD BE MADE": EMAILS TO THE COURT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF APPLICATIONS
NO FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY WHERE A CLAIMANT GAVE AN ACCOUNT DIFFERENT TO HER LETTER OF CLAIM: (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE)
NON-COMPLIANT CLAIMANTS ARE IN THE LAST CHANCE SALOON (AND THERE ARE 5,000 OF THEM): BUT PARTICULARS MUST BE SERVED AND ADVERSE COSTS STILL PAID
SERVICE POINTS 57: PRESENCE IN THE JURISDICTION, A LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AND THE COST OF GETTING IT WRONG: UNSUCCESFUL CLAIMANT FACES A COSTS BILL OF £500,000...

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop