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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
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
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
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
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'
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