Back in fashion?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.

09 March 2012 / Julian Chamberlayne

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

printer

mail-detail

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 2025. 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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS

NLJ this week: Law Society calls for clarity on AML

The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week

NLJ this week: Turning corporate liability into opportunity

Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted

NLJ this week: A prince no more?

Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke

NLJ this week: Shareholder secrecy sunk

Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'

NLJ this week: The expanding remit of national security law

In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains

back-to-top-scroll