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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll