header-logo header-logo

100% success fee claim sinks

27 October 2011
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court of Appeal rules on landmark UK costs case

The Court of Appeal has given judgment on the biggest costs case in English legal history.

Motto v Trafigura [2011] EWCA Civ 1150 concerned Leigh, Day & Co’s claim for £100m costs for its group action on behalf of about 30,000 citizens of the Ivory Coast against Trafigura. This followed an incident where a Trafigura-chartered ship hired contractors to dispose of toxic waste, which was then dumped in Abidjan, the Ivorian capital. The case settled for just under £1,000 per claimant plus costs.

The court upheld Trafigura’s appeal on proportionality, holding that any item on the bill is only to be allowed if it was necessary. It held Leigh, Day & Co could recover costs in respect of “abandoned claims” in so far as it was “reasonable and proportionate to plead, investigate and pursue them”.

The court upheld the costs judge’s determination of a 58% success fee rather than the 100% claimed by Leigh, Day & Co. It held that the cost of advertising to or identifying potential clients, and the cost of arranging a conditional fee agreement (CFA) are not recoverable costs amd that costs incurred before CFAs have been entered into cannot be recovered.

Delivering judgment, Lord Neuberger said: “Until the CFA is signed, the potential claimant is not merely not a claimant: he is not a client…It seems to me that the expenses of getting business, whether advertising to the public as potential clients, making a presentation to a potential client, or discussing a possible instruction with a potential client, should not normally be treated as attributable to, and payable by, the ultimate client or clients. Rather, such expenses should generally be treated as part of a solicitor’s general overheads or expenses, which can be taken into account when assessing appropriate levels of charging, such as hourly rates.”

In a statement, Leigh, Day & Co said: “We’re pleased that the Court of Appeal has largely upheld the decision of Master Hurst that we’ve always been content with. This is another step within the detailed assessment of our costs and we now move on to going through the bill of costs, item by item.”
 

Issue: 7486 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll