Jenkins v Young Brothers Transport Ltd [2006] EWHC 151 (QB) – Law Journals

Conditional fee agreements: The price of success

Dan Stacey and Theo Barclay highlight how the Court of Appeal permits recovery of success fees even if pre-LASPO CFAs have been subsequently transferred ‘The court was not prepared to prevent the claimant recovering a success fee simply because her claim had been transferred to a new firm of solicitors with her consent. That would …

Continue reading "Conditional fee agreements: The price of success"

This post is only available to members.

Costs: Sharp turns

Paul Jones discusses the contentious world of CFA assignment ‘The assignment was valid in this case and, therefore, costs were payable by the defendant for the work done by each of the claimant’s solicitors.’Assignment of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) continues to be a thorny topic in the costs world. With the changes in the personal …

Continue reading "Costs: Sharp turns"

This post is only available to members.

CFAs: Held in the balance

P L

Reuben Glynn examines the precedents for contesting the assignment of a CFA ‘Jenkins was not appealed, and remains good law. The problem is it was only a High Court decision so, in principle, could be departed from by another High Court judge or overturned by the Court of Appeal.’ We have a new battle ground …

Continue reading "CFAs: Held in the balance"

This post is only available to members.

Costs: Assignment of conditional fee agreements

Paul Jones examines the complications caused when a recent claim was passed to new solicitors ‘In conducting its analysis of the competing positions, the court started from the well-recognised principle that only the benefit of a contract can be assigned, not the burden, but that there were certain limited exceptions where it was permissible.’With all …

Continue reading "Costs: Assignment of conditional fee agreements"

This post is only available to members.

Case Report: Ghising v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 3706 (QB)

CFAs; retrospective recoverability of success fees; back-dating ‘Notwithstanding that inter partes uplift is irrecoverable under the large majority of retainers entered after March 2013 (ie ‘pre-Jackson’), there are potential wider implications in this decision.’This costs appeal is notable for the relatively benign approach taken to a retrospective CFA. Facts The claimant took part in group …

Continue reading "Case Report: Ghising v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 3706 (QB)"

This post is only available to members.