2008

This was a matter where the Claimant had failed to give the Defendant notification of an ATE insurance premium of £80,325.

The claim was a medical negligence matter and on 28/11/07, settlement was agreed at £150,000, subject to the Court’s approval, plus the Claimant’s legal costs. The Court approved this sum on 18/12/07.

This was a matter concerning Accident Line Protect membership. The Defendants argued that the Solicitors for the Claimant were in breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 in that they failed to disclose to their Client that they had an ‘interest’ within the meaning of the above Regulation and therefore, the CFA was unenforceable.

The matter concerned was a mesothelioma case which settled for £290,000 (including an interim payment of £40,000). Different hourly rates had been claimed by the Claimant’s solicitors at different periods. At detailed assessment, a Principal Costs Officer allowed composite rates which were higher than the figures suggested in the guideline rates. The success fee claimed of 67% was also allowed.

The Defendant appealed against both the hourly rates allowed to the Claimant’s solicitors and the success fees allowed to the Claimant’s solicitors and counsel by the Principal Costs Officer.

The issue in this matter was whether it was reasonable for a client to instruct solicitors outside of the client’s local area.

It was alleged by the Claimant that the police had unlawfully searched and detained him on 29/04/98. He was then prosecuted for affray, assault and criminal damage. However, the Claimant successfully resisted the criminal charges. As a result of his wrongful arrest, the Claimant alleged that he developed paranoid schizophrenia. A claim was brought against the police.

The issue in this matter was whether the Claimant could obtain a refund of payments made to the Defendant solicitors under a CFA which, because of non-compliance with the CFA Regulations which related to it, was unenforceable.

The client was the Claimant in a personal injury action and had instructed the Defendant solicitors by way of a CFA. The Claimant changes solicitors and the personal injury claim continued.

This was a matter where the Claimant submitted that the costs of a loss adjuster, included in a Bill of Costs at Detailed Assessment as a disbursement, could not be recovered against a paying party.

The loss adjuster had been instructed by the Defendants’ insurer prior to the instruction of the Defendant’s Solicitor. Following the filing of a notice of discontinuance by the Claimant, the Defendants requested detailed assessment of their Bill of Costs. The Costs Officer allowed the costs of the loss adjuster as they were incurred clearly 'of and incidental to' the proceedings.

This was a matter before Master Simons, dealing with the enforceability of the Defendant’s CFA following the setting aside of an Order made by a Deputy Costs Judge in which he held the CFA was unenforceable.

It was submitted by the Claimant that the Defendant’s CFA did not comply with Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, in that it did not specify the amount of the success fee which related to postponement and was therefore unenforceable.

This matter was a preliminary issue in advance of a detailed assessment of a bill of costs to deal with whether the Claimant’s Solicitors were entitled to exclude from consideration by a Costs Judge a document in relation to negotiations for settlement when the underlying litigation was compromised on the basis that this document was marked without prejudice.

This was a matter where the Defendant challenged the Claimant’s AAH CFA.

Following an accident where the Defendant rode his motorcycle into the side of the Claimant’s car and the Claimant sustained injury, the Claimant was referred to her Solicitor by Accident Advice Helpline (AAH). An insurance premium was purchased from AAH on 05/07/02 and a CFA was entered into on 08/07/02.

This was a housing repair matter where the Claimant had entered into 2 CFAs, the 1st on 16/03/05 and the 2nd on 05/04/06.

The Defendant submitted that neither CFA was enforceable in light of undue influence on the Claimant, the absence of consideration for the 2nd CFA and retrospectivity.