header-logo header-logo

28 January 2022 / Dominic Regan
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Opinion , Profession , Costs , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

The insider: 28 January 2022

69685
Dominic Regan delves into deductions from damages & namechecks some particularly special specialists

The Court of Appeal has allocated a day and a half in the last week of February to hear the appeal in Belsner v Cam Legal Services Ltd [2020] EWHC 2755 (QB). The case revisits the issue of informed consent in the context of what a client will be liable to pay their own legal representative.

In Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB), the Court of Appeal held that a client merely agreeing to give up part of their damages to help fund the litigation was not good enough. Had she been given a clear explanation as to how that deduction was calculated, she would not have agreed to it. The absence of informed consent rendered the deduction excessive, and the client was to be reimbursed £349. One might sneer at such a trivial sum. The court ordered the solicitor to pay £30,000 on account of costs to those who had raised 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

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll