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

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS

NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos

he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC

NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul

Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation

NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere

Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group

NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall

A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision

NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?

An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading

back-to-top-scroll