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 » Conditional Fee Agreements
COST BITES 275: APPELLANT SUCCESSFUL IN PUTTING LOCAL AUTHORITY RECEIVING PARTIES TO THEIR ELECTION IN RELATION TO CCFAS

COST BITES 275: APPELLANT SUCCESSFUL IN PUTTING LOCAL AUTHORITY RECEIVING PARTIES TO THEIR ELECTION IN RELATION TO CCFAS

August 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

It may be a matter of comment when the suspicion arises that the costs of arguing about costs exceeds the initial costs in dispute.  I suspect that may be the case in many cases in this series (indeed people have…

COST BITES 222: A "RETROSPECTIVE" CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS STILL VALID AND THE PAYING PARTY HAD TO PAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

COST BITES 222: A “RETROSPECTIVE” CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS STILL VALID AND THE PAYING PARTY HAD TO PAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

March 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Singh & Ors v Ingram [2025] EWCA Civ 264 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a retrospective conditional fee agreement was invalid. The Court was, to say the least, suspicious of argument that the receiving party’s solicitors…

COST BITES 218: JUNIOR COUNSEL'S FEES NOT RECOVERABLE IN PRIVY COUNCIL CASE WHERE THE CFA WAS NOT LAWFUL

COST BITES 218: JUNIOR COUNSEL’S FEES NOT RECOVERABLE IN PRIVY COUNCIL CASE WHERE THE CFA WAS NOT LAWFUL

February 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Andrew Roy KC  for sending me a copy of the judgment of Costs Judge Rowley in Ruhumatally v The State of Mauritius & Anor, a copy of the judgment is available here  Ruhumatally – reasons.  The…

COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?

COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO). Here the judge considered (and rejected) that claimant’s [former client’s] argument that the CFA entered into with the solicitor was…

COST BITES 130: WHAT COSTS ARE RECOVERABLE WHEN A CLIENT SACKS A SOLICITOR WORKING UNDER A CFA? STICK OR TWIST

COST BITES 130: WHAT COSTS ARE RECOVERABLE WHEN A CLIENT SACKS A SOLICITOR WORKING UNDER A CFA? STICK OR TWIST

January 2, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker  in Sellers v Simpkins [2023] EWHC 3296 (SCCO)  considers the issue of what costs a client is due to pay when they have terminated the retainer with a solicitor acting under a CFA….

COST BITES 108: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: THE NEED FOR THE LAWYER TO GIVE ACCURATE ESTIMATES OF COST AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF INACCURACY (THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE SOLICITOR)

COST BITES 108: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: THE NEED FOR THE LAWYER TO GIVE ACCURATE ESTIMATES OF COST AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF INACCURACY (THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE SOLICITOR)

October 23, 2023 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in Kenton v Slee Blackwell PLC [2023] EWHC 2613 (SCCO) provides an object lesson in the perils of the clear warnings and advice that clients have to be given in relation to costs….

SOLICITORS CAN'T RECOVER COSTS UNDER AN UNENFORCEABLE CFA: WHAT IS MORE THE CLIENTS CAN RECOVER SUMS BACK

SOLICITORS CAN’T RECOVER COSTS UNDER AN UNENFORCEABLE CFA: WHAT IS MORE THE CLIENTS CAN RECOVER SUMS BACK

October 16, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Diag Human SE & Anor v Volterra Fietta (Re Assessment Under Part III Solicitors Act 1974) [2023] EWCA Civ 1107 the Court of Appeal upheld earlier judgments that solicitors, acting under a conditional fee agreement that claimed more than…

A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A "DUTY OF GOOD FAITH" TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT

A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A “DUTY OF GOOD FAITH” TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT

August 10, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Candey Ltd v Bosheh & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1103 Lord Justice Coulson rejected an argument that a client, who has entered into a conditional fee agreement with a solicitor, owed a duty of good faith to that solicitor. …

IS A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE IF THE SOLICITOR BREACHES THE CODE OF CONDUCT? MUCH TO THINK ABOUT?

IS A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT UNENFORCEABLE IF THE SOLICITOR BREACHES THE CODE OF CONDUCT? MUCH TO THINK ABOUT?

December 16, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Trower in Winros Partnership v Global Energy Horizons Corporation [2021] EWHC 3410 (Ch) gives much for  lawyers to think about.  Here I want to concentrate on one element  of that judgment- does a failure to…

WHEN CAN A COURT TAKE ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES  UNDER A CFA INTO ACCOUNT IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES?

WHEN CAN A COURT TAKE ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES UNDER A CFA INTO ACCOUNT IN THE AWARD OF DAMAGES?

October 19, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

Another aspect of the Court of Appeal judgment in Hirachand v Hirachand & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 1498 was the Court of Appeal’s consideration of whether it was appropriate for the judge to take into account liabilities for costs under a…

SOLICITORS AND FUNDERS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THEIR AGREEMENT: FORMER CLIENTS LIABLE TO PAY COSTS: WHEN LITIGATION GOES AWRY

SOLICITORS AND FUNDERS ENTITLED TO TERMINATE THEIR AGREEMENT: FORMER CLIENTS LIABLE TO PAY COSTS: WHEN LITIGATION GOES AWRY

August 13, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Professional negligence,

The judgment of HHJ Cadwallader in Escalate Law Ltd & Anor v Kennedy & Anor [2021] EWHC 2232 (Ch) is an example of legal funders and solicitors falling out with their clients.  The  judge upheld the decision to withdraw from…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNFAIR OR UNREASONABLE: SENIOR COURT COSTS OFFICE DECISION TODAY

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS NOT UNFAIR OR UNREASONABLE: SENIOR COURT COSTS OFFICE DECISION TODAY

June 25, 2021 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Acupay System LLC v Stephenson Harwood LLP [2021] EWHC B11 (Costs) Costs Judge Leonard rejected a claimant’s argument that a conditional fee agreement it had entered into with a solicitor was unfair, unreasonable and not supported by consideration. (There…

THE DANGERS OF WORKING UNDER A DBA: WHEN DOES RIGHT TO PAYMENT ARISE? WAS THE DBA ENFORCEABLE: ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT

THE DANGERS OF WORKING UNDER A DBA: WHEN DOES RIGHT TO PAYMENT ARISE? WAS THE DBA ENFORCEABLE: ISSUES CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT

April 30, 2021 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakovski & Ors [2021] EWHC 1122 (Ch) Mr Justice Zacaroli considered the issue of whether the right to payment under a Damages Based Agreement (DBA).  It was held that right to payment under…

SOLICITOR'S FEES NOT RECOVERABLE AFTER THEY HAD TERMINATED THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION

SOLICITOR’S FEES NOT RECOVERABLE AFTER THEY HAD TERMINATED THE CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION

October 28, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  Toms (t/a Goldbergs Solicitors) v Brannan [2020] EWHC 2866 (QB) Mr Justice Griffiths dismissed a solicitor’s appeal against a decision that he was not able to recover costs from a client after a conditional fee agreement had been terminated….

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: CANDOUR FROM THE APPLICANT AND NO EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE PREJUDICE

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: CANDOUR FROM THE APPLICANT AND NO EVIDENCE FROM THE DEFENDANT TO PROVE PREJUDICE

November 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a report of a case where relief from sanctions was granted in Anglia Autoflow North America LLC and Another v Anglia Autoflow Ltd [2019] Costs LR 155. One thing that marks this case is the total candour from the…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AFTER DEATH: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AFTER DEATH: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY

October 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Higgins & Co Lawyers Ltd -v- Evans [2019] EWHC 2809 (QB) Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini overturned a decision that a conditional fee agreement was not enforceable after death. THE CASE The deceased had signed a CFA agreement with the…

PROVING THINGS 150: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MOVE FROM LEGAL AID TO CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS A REASONABLE STEP

PROVING THINGS 150: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE MOVE FROM LEGAL AID TO CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS A REASONABLE STEP

May 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Experts, Members Content

In YZ v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC B4 (Costs) Master Gordon-Saker found that the claimant had not established good grounds for changing from legal aid to a conditional fee agreement.   Although this is a costs issue, it…

TERMINATING A CFA WITH GOOD REASON: NO NEED FOR SOLICITORS TO WAIT FOR GODOT: ADVICE ABOUT "SETTLEMENT" COVERS THE MAKING OF AN OFFER

TERMINATING A CFA WITH GOOD REASON: NO NEED FOR SOLICITORS TO WAIT FOR GODOT: ADVICE ABOUT “SETTLEMENT” COVERS THE MAKING OF AN OFFER

March 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Butler v Bankside Commercial Ltd [2019] EWHC 510 (QB) Mr Justice Turner upheld a decision of Master Yoxall holding that a client was liable to pay their solicitor’s costs after a conditional fee agreement came to an end when the…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT DID NOT CONTINUE AFTER A SOLICITOR HAD CEASED TO ACT: DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY COSTS TO FIRST SET OF SOLICITORS

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT DID NOT CONTINUE AFTER A SOLICITOR HAD CEASED TO ACT: DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY COSTS TO FIRST SET OF SOLICITORS

February 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Wulwik in Roman -v- AXA Insurance PLC (13/12/2018).   Roman v AXA Insurance [2018] (1) The judge found that a CFA with…

THE ASSIGNMENT  (OR NOVATION) OF CFAS: BOXING PROMOTER'S APPEAL SUFFERS KNOCKOUT BLOW BEFORE A PUNCH WAS THROWN

THE ASSIGNMENT (OR NOVATION) OF CFAS: BOXING PROMOTER’S APPEAL SUFFERS KNOCKOUT BLOW BEFORE A PUNCH WAS THROWN

December 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Warren v Hill Dickinson LLP [2018] EWHC 3322 (QB) the proposed appellant did not get permission to appeal against a decision that an assigned (or novated) CFA remained valid. THE CASE The claimant argued that conditional fee agreements he had…

WHEN LITIGATION LAWYERS SPLIT UP: THE FALL OUT CONTINUES: A SPLIT TRIAL WAS FAR FROM WISE...

WHEN LITIGATION LAWYERS SPLIT UP: THE FALL OUT CONTINUES: A SPLIT TRIAL WAS FAR FROM WISE…

July 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  FPH Law (a firm) v Brown (t/a Integrum Law) [2018] EWCA Civ 1629 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal against a finding on a preliminary issue. There was a potential cause of action between two firms of solicitors…

CFA IS STILL VALID EVEN IF IT NAMES THE WRONG DEFENDANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

CFA IS STILL VALID EVEN IF IT NAMES THE WRONG DEFENDANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

June 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  Malone v Birmingham Community NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1376 the Court of Appeal held that a Conditional Fee Agreement was valid even though it named the wrong defendant.  The judgment contains important observations on how conditional fee agreements should…

LIEN, THE SOLICITOR AND THE INSURER: NO SAFE HAVEN FOR DEFENDANTS

LIEN, THE SOLICITOR AND THE INSURER: NO SAFE HAVEN FOR DEFENDANTS

April 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Access to justice, Appeals, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of the Supreme Court this morning in Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 21. It confirms that solicitors are entitled to costs in cases where the defendant’s insurer, knowing of the solicitor’s involvement,  settled…

THE TIME FOR CHALLENGING A BILL HAS PROBABLY LONG GONE: AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY UP

THE TIME FOR CHALLENGING A BILL HAS PROBABLY LONG GONE: AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN REFUSING AN APPLICATION FOR DELIVERY UP

March 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

There is a battle (or a series of skirmishes) going on at present in relation to solicitors charging success fees to their clients in personal injury cases. This has led to numerous applications to the courts for disclosure.  The former…

ROUND ONE: WHAT IS A"WIN" UNDER A CFA?  ROUND TWO: THE ASSIGNMENT OF CFAS: FORMER CLIENT DOES NOT SCORE A KNOCKOUT BLOW

ROUND ONE: WHAT IS A”WIN” UNDER A CFA? ROUND TWO: THE ASSIGNMENT OF CFAS: FORMER CLIENT DOES NOT SCORE A KNOCKOUT BLOW

March 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Warren v Hill Dickinson LLP [2018] EWHC B6 (Costs) Master Leonard considered what was meant by the term “win” in a conditional fee agreement.  He also considered whether a CFA was properly assigned.  The former client (the claimant in this…

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 119 the Court of Appeal upheld the early decisions that lawyers, who worked outside the terms of their retainer under a CFA, could not recover costs from the unsuccessful party….

WHEN A PARTY CHANGES ITS FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS PART WAY THROUGH: A CHANGE FROM DBA TO CFA DID NOT PREVENT THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING FULL COSTS

WHEN A PARTY CHANGES ITS FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS PART WAY THROUGH: A CHANGE FROM DBA TO CFA DID NOT PREVENT THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING FULL COSTS

January 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

The decision of Master James in Dial Partners LLP & Anor v Eastern Airways International Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC B1 (Costs) raises an interesting set of issues when a party changes the basis of its funding part-way through a case,…

ASSIGNMENT OF CFAs: IT CAN BE DONE

ASSIGNMENT OF CFAs: IT CAN BE DONE

December 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  Budana v The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1980 the Court of Appeal decided that a CFA can be assigned from one solicitor to another. THE CASE The claimant was injured. She entered into a…

"YOU ARE ONLY HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CFA": THERE IS NOT MUCH USE IN ATTACKING THE SOURCE OF YOUR OPPONENT'S FUNDING

“YOU ARE ONLY HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CFA”: THERE IS NOT MUCH USE IN ATTACKING THE SOURCE OF YOUR OPPONENT’S FUNDING

October 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In an earlier post we looked the judge’s views in relation to witness credibility in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC). Here we look at the judge’s view on the defendant’s attack on the…

GET £15,000 FOR YOUR COSTS PAY £20,000 IN COSTS: CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE AND WAS SET ASIDE

GET £15,000 FOR YOUR COSTS PAY £20,000 IN COSTS: CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE AND WAS SET ASIDE

June 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Vilvarajah -v- West London Law Limited [2017] EWHC B23 (Costs) Master Gordon Saker declared a conditional fee agreement unreasonable and set it aside. The history and circumstances of this action make for interesting reading. “There is no correspondence between…

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO CFA: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO CFA: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

May 25, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

This blog has followed the cases that arose out of decisions to switch from public funding to legal aid. In Hyde -v- Milton Keynes NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWCA Civ 399 the Court of Appeal has given a judgment that…

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE...)

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE…)

April 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Members Content

There has already been some interesting debate on Twitter about one aspect of the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that has not made the headlines.   Dominic Regan observed that the case is another example…

HOURLY RATES, SUCCESS FEES, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS – ALL IN ONE CASE

November 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

There is a great deal of material covered in the judgment of Master Gordon-Saker in Various Claimants -v- MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B29 (Costs). THE CASE The court was determining various preliminary issues in relation to costs in the “phone…

ANOTHER ROUND IN THE CFA ASSIGNMENT BATTLE: CFA CAN BE ASSIGNED

August 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Azim -v- Tradwise Insurance Services Limited [2016] EWHC B20 (Costs) Master Leonard found that a conditional fee agreement could properly be assigned. KEY POINTS An assignment of a CFA between solicitors was valid. The validity of an assignment did…

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID? WHEN THE CFAS DID NOT COVER THE COSTS: BAD NEWS FOR SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL

July 8, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment today of Mr Justice Warby in Radford -v- Frade [2016] EWHC 1600 (QB) contains an important warning in relation to the construction of CFAs both for solicitors and counsel. KEY POINTS A solicitor entered into a CFA with…

SWITCHING FROM LEGAL AID TO CFA: THE SUCCESSFUL APPEAL

July 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The saga relating to the assessment of costs where a claimant changed from public funding to a conditional fee agreement has been dealt with many times on this blog*.  All of these issues are now dealt with in the judgment…

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…

MOVING FROM PUBLIC FUNDING TO CFA: NOT A REASONABLE STEP IN THIS CASE

March 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

NB see the appeals related to these issues discussed here This blog has already reviewed several of the cases where the courts have considered the reasonableness of moving from public funding to a conditional fee agreement.  The issue is significant…

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…

CHILDREN AND SUCCESS FEES PART 2: WHAT SUCCESS FEE WAS REASONABLE?

September 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

We looked earlier at the decision of the Regional Cost Judge Lumb in the case of A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th August 2015). As a result of that case the decision of the success…

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…

MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT LEADS TO REDUCTION OF COSTS BY 50%: KERINS -V- HEART OF ENGLAND NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

August 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is a report on Lawtel today of the decision of District Judge Griffith in Kerins -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (Birmingham, 31st July 2015). The claimant’s costs were reduced by 50% because of misconduct in the assessment…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS NOT SENT TO COVENTRY: KEY POINTS AND LINKS

July 22, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The decision in Coventry -v- Lawrence [2015] UKSC 50 has not led to any major change in practice and procedure (in relation to a costs regime that had already ended anyway). A link to the judgment is here  KEY POINTS…

RETROSPECTIVE CCFA WAS VALID (BUT ONLY JUST): CFAS "AWASH IN A SEA OF ILLEGALITY":THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE

July 10, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Pentecost -v- John [2015] EWHC 1970 (QB) Turner J (sitting with Master Leonard as an assessor) held that a retrospective Collective Conditional Fee Agreement was valid between the client and their solicitors, thus valid for the purpose of enforcing…

INCREASED COSTS AND "MYSTIFYING" PLEADINGS: A WARNING TO THOSE DRAFTING DEFENCES: IT'S GOING TO COST YOU

June 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Edis in Davies -v- Forrett [2015] EWHC 1761 QB is an object lesson on the dangers of lax pleading. Denying the relevance of a conviction in a pleading led to the joinder of a number…

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…

1 2 Next →

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

  • MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
  • MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
  • THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
  • MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
  • PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON'T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT...
  • MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION"? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
  • MAZUR MATTERS 8: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" (1): HOW HELPFUL ARE THE REGULATORS?
  • THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
  • MAZUR RECORDING - NOW AVAILABLE

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.