Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Success Fees
COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)

COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)

September 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees

Today we are looking at a case where the appellants claim to £1.3 million in costs was lost because the Damages-Based Agreements were found to be unlawful and unenforceable.  It provides a salutary lesson to all those who are involved…

COST BITES 204: A SUCCESS FEE CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS DAMAGES: SUPREME COURT DECISION: "AN ORDER THAT PROVIDES FOR ONE PARTY TO PAY ANOTHER PARTY'S COSTS IS A COSTS ORDER"

COST BITES 204: A SUCCESS FEE CANNOT BE RECOVERED AS DAMAGES: SUPREME COURT DECISION: “AN ORDER THAT PROVIDES FOR ONE PARTY TO PAY ANOTHER PARTY’S COSTS IS A COSTS ORDER”

December 31, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees, Webinar

In Hirachand v Hirachand & Anor [2024] UKSC 43 the Supreme Court dismissed the idea that an award to a claimant could be increased to take account of the fact that the claimant was liable to pay a success fee…

COST BITES 158: SOLICITOR WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO SUCCESS FEE AND NO FURTHER COSTS: HIGH COURT DECISION ON APPEAL

COST BITES 158: SOLICITOR WAS ONLY ENTITLED TO SUCCESS FEE AND NO FURTHER COSTS: HIGH COURT DECISION ON APPEAL

July 4, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees

In St. James v Wilkin Chapman LLP [2024] EWHC 1716 (KB) Mr Justice Constable allowed an appeal against a decision that a solicitor was entitled to deduct additional costs from the claimant’s damages. The judge held that the terms of…

A CAP OF 25% ON COSTS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM DAMAGES GIVES RISE TO PRESUMPTION OF INFORMED CONSENT FROM CLIENT

A CAP OF 25% ON COSTS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM DAMAGES GIVES RISE TO PRESUMPTION OF INFORMED CONSENT FROM CLIENT

March 26, 2021 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Success Fees

The Law Society Gazette carries a report of the decision of Regional Costs Judge Rouine in Swann -v- Slater & Gordon. The judge decided that the existence of a cap on costs liability of 25% indicated that a claimant/client had…

THE SOLICITOR'S FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE CLIENT TO EXPLAIN COSTS: FAILURE TO PLACE CAP ON SUCCESS FEE MEANT AGREEMENT WAS UNENFORCEABLE: HIGH COURT DECISION

THE SOLICITOR’S FIDUCIARY DUTY TO THE CLIENT TO EXPLAIN COSTS: FAILURE TO PLACE CAP ON SUCCESS FEE MEANT AGREEMENT WAS UNENFORCEABLE: HIGH COURT DECISION

October 18, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury, Success Fees

In Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 2755 (QB) Mr Justice Lavender allowed an appeal whereby a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of a claimant were permitted to deduct 25% of the damages in addition to payment…

PROPORTIONALITY CONQUERS ALL? PROFIT COSTS (AND COUNSEL'S FEES) HALVED

June 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) has already received widespread publicity. The principle of proportionality was used to halve profit costs and counsel’s fees and make a substantial reduction on the insurance premium….

SUCCESS FEES:DEDUCTIONS FROM DAMAGES WHERE CLAIMANT IS UNDER A DISABILITY

May 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The issue of deductions of success fees in cases when the claimant is under a disability remains a difficult one. I am grateful to Jane McBennett of Morrish Solicitors in Bradford for the attached note in relation to a court…

ASSIGNMENT OF CFAS: ROUND 2: ASSIGNMENT CAN TAKE PLACE

May 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Jones -v- Spire Healthcare Ltd His Honour Graham Wood QC had to determine the issue of whether a CFA can be assigned. The full judgment is an attachment to this post and is available here…

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…

CHILDREN, SUCCESS FEES AND DEDUCTIONS FROM DAMAGES : AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT

August 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The question of child claimants and deductions from damages remains a live and controversial one. The judgment on this issue of the regional costs judge,District Judge Lumb in A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th…

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 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 294: “A DETAILED ASSESSMENT IS NOT THE FORUM TO RESCUE OR TO ATTEMPT TO CHANGE THE EFFECT OF A POORLY WORDED ORDER”: THE COURT WOULD NOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF POTENTIAL FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTYOF THE PRIMARY ACTION ON ASSESSMENT
  • COST BITES 293: AN EXAMPLE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (AND COSTS BEING REDUCED) WHEN THE OPPOSING PARTY WAS NOT PRESENT
  • MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW “PONDERING” WHAT TO DO…
  • EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT “PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY” BY THE COURT
  • THE JOINT EXPERT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS: WEBINAR 1ST OCTOBER 2025: WITH SOME IMPORTANT RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 1: THE PENALTIES FOR NON-QUALIFIED STAFF CONDUCTING LITIGATION (AKA "HOW MUCH TIME COULD I SERVE")
  • MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW "PONDERING" WHAT TO DO...
  • COST BITES 293: AN EXAMPLE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (AND COSTS BEING REDUCED) WHEN THE OPPOSING PARTY WAS NOT PRESENT
  • PROVING THINGS 269: PROVING THAT A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST: IS TURNING A "BLIND EYE" ENOUGH?
  • THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR CONSIDERED: HOW NOT TO BREAK THE CRIMINAL LAW BY USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF... WEBINAR 3rd OCTOBER 2025

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.