09 March 2012 / Julian Chamberlayne

Issue: 7504 / Categories: Features , Costs , Personal injury

printer

mail-detail

Back in fashion?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Julian Chamberlayne describes how retrospective & discounted CFAs are treated by the court

Following Birmingham CC v Forde [2009] EWHC 12 (QB) and Gloucestershire County Council v Evans and another [2008] EWCA Civ 21, which respectively held that retrospective conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and discounted CFAs were not contrary to public policy, we have waited many years for decisions applying the principles. December 2011 saw an end to that wait, with two interesting decisions in the Senior Courts Cost Office (SCCO).

The cases & decisions

Starting with retrospective CFAs; in JM Dairies Limited v Johal Dairies Limited and another [2011] EWHC 90211 (Costs), Master Gordon-Saker followed the Forde decision, by accepting that retrospective CFAs were not contrary to public policy and hence were lawful, but held on the facts of the case it would be unreasonable to require the defendants to pay the large retrospective success fees claimed (including £60,000 for solicitor’s work done before the CFA had been entered into),

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

Back in fashion?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Julian Chamberlayne describes how retrospective & discounted CFAs are treated by the court

Following Birmingham CC v Forde [2009] EWHC 12 (QB) and Gloucestershire County Council v Evans and another [2008] EWCA Civ 21, which respectively held that retrospective conditional fee agreements (CFAs) and discounted CFAs were not contrary to public policy, we have waited many years for decisions applying the principles. December 2011 saw an end to that wait, with two interesting decisions in the Senior Courts Cost Office (SCCO).

The cases & decisions

Starting with retrospective CFAs; in JM Dairies Limited v Johal Dairies Limited and another [2011] EWHC 90211 (Costs), Master Gordon-Saker followed the Forde decision, by accepting that retrospective CFAs were not contrary to public policy and hence were lawful, but held on the facts of the case it would be unreasonable to require the defendants to pay the large retrospective success fees claimed (including £60,000 for solicitor’s work done before the CFA had been entered into),

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content

If you are already a subscriber sign in

...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

SourceURL:

Links:

E-newsletter Sign-Up

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS

NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’

Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot

NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake

The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’

NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’

A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes

NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?

After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent

NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?

Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25

back-to-top-scroll