Back in fashion?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. 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 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

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

Public Accounts Committee warn of ‘extinction’ risk for legal aid

The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned

NLJ this week: The insider returns

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

NLJ this week: Drawing the line on contempt

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

NLJ this week: Stop and search by the numbers

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

NLJ this week: Looking back on the prorogation that never was

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