header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
12 July 2018 / Francis Kendall
Issue: 7801 / Categories: Features , Fees , Personal injury
printer mail-detail

Risk versus reward

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
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

Read All
Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Bellevue Law—Sally Hall

Employment boutique strengthens data protection and privacy offering with senior consultant hire

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

NEWS
Read All
APIL sees off ‘substantial prejudice’ defence
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
‘Lost years’ precedent overturned
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
NLJ this week: Short lets & sharp covenants
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
NLJ this week: Justice at the algorithm’s edge
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
NLJ this week: When ‘milk’ really means milk
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll