header-logo header-logo

Risk versus reward

12 July 2018 / Francis Kendall
Issue: 7801 / Categories: Features , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail
845452240_0

What has Herbert taught us about setting success fees & implied or informed consent? Francis Kendall explains

  • The judgment in Herbert v HH Law confirms that risk assessments are necessary when establishing the success fee.
  • Clients’ approval of the type or amount of costs incurred requires their informed consent.

A recent High Court ruling has shown that solicitors still need to undertake individual risk assessments before setting the success fee in minor road traffic accident cases (RTA), and also obtain their clients’ ‘informed consent’ to the figure.

Market norm

In Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB), [2018] All ER (D) 168 (Mar), claimant Nicky Herbert was advised by her solicitors, Hampson Hughes (HH), to accept an offer of £3,400 for a rear-end shunt by a bus, of which £829 would be deducted as the firm’s success fee (25% of damages) and £349 for after-the-event (ATE) insurance. She accepted the offer but subsequently instructed JG Solicitors, which has been much in the news of late for its work challenging deductions from

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll