Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Success Fees
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…

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…

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…

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…

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…

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 86: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND DEFENCE ON THE MORNING OF TRIAL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: ANOTHER CASE WHERE (MIS) SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM LED TO GRIEF
  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.