header-logo header-logo

Little claimants, big success fees

08 January 2016
Issue: 7681 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

CPR PD 21, par 11.3 applies where a claimant’s litigation friend (at the instigation of the claimant’s solicitor) seeks to have what is more often than not 25% of the claimant’s damages paid to the claimant’s solicitor by way of a conditional fee agreement success fee. Is it proper for a judge to decline to approve the settlement on the sole ground that the success fee sought is excessive? If the judge does approve subject to only part of the success fee sought being clawed back from the damages, does that put the litigation friend in peril of being sued for the shortfall?

It is not uncommon for the judge to be unhappy about the size of the success fee in an uncomplicated claim where there could never have been any serious argument about liability or quantum. A typical example is a whiplash claim by child claimant in a motoring accident where it is plain as a pikestaff that the defendant was entirely negligent for the accident. Nor is it uncommon for the

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

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The dangers of uncritical artificial intelligence (AI) use in legal practice are no longer hypothetical. In this week's NLJ, Dr Charanjit Singh of Holborn Chambers examines cases where lawyers relied on ‘hallucinated’ citations — entirely fictitious authorities generated by AI tools
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
back-to-top-scroll