header-logo header-logo

26 July 2016 / David Wright
Categories: Features , Costs , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

Fees fi fo fum

David Wright discusses fixed advocacy fees

Is the trial advocacy fee payable where no court advocacy has actually taken place?

The question of when a trial starts, as a trigger for an additional costs payment, has been an issue for some time, coming to the fore under the pre-LASPO success fee regime where a higher success fee was payable where a case concluded at trial. The problem arises when the case settles at the doors of the court and under the old r 45.16, such case law as there was indicated that if the trial had not actually begun, then the higher success fee could not be claimed.

The post-LASPO equivalent of this is part IIIA of CPR 45, and table 6B within r 45.29C, where a higher fee is payable if the claim is disposed of at trial. Under section C of table 6B, it is made up of three parts: £2,655, 20% of the damages and the relevant trial advocacy fee.

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

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
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
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
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
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
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