header-logo header-logo

Fees fi fo fum

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

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

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll