KU (A Child) v LCC [2005] EWCA Civ 475 (27 April 2005)

KU (A Child) v LCC [2005] EWCA Civ 475 (27 April 2005)

A single-stage success fee of 100% was unreasonable; a 50% success fee would have been reasonable at inception. The CFA does not allow for different success fees for different stages, and the court has no power to direct otherwise. The district judge erred in varying the success fee for later periods; Judge Stewart QC was correct to hold that the success fee must remain as set at the outset.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 475
Parties
Claimant/respondent: KU (a child, by her mother and litigation friend PU); Defendants/appellants: Liverpool City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Assessment Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; declaratory answers given; lower court's order undisturbed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Costs Assessment, Practice Directions, Personal Injury
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Costs Assessment Practice Directions Personal Injury

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KU (a child, by her mother and litigation friend PU)

Claimant/respondent

Liverpool City Council

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Assessment Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 100% success fee was appropriate on the CFA at inception
  2. 2 Whether the CFA contractually allows for different success fees for detailed assessment and main claim
  3. 3 Whether the court has power to direct different success fee rates for different periods or items of costs

Ratio Decidendi

A single-stage success fee of 100% was unreasonable; a 50% success fee would have been reasonable at inception. The CFA does not allow for different success fees for different stages, and the court has no power to direct otherwise. The district judge erred in varying the success fee for later periods; Judge Stewart QC was correct to hold that the success fee must remain as set at the outset.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; declaratory answers given; lower court's order undisturbed.

Orders

  • Judge Stewart's order remains undisturbed.
  • Council to pay claimant's costs in the Court of Appeal, subject to a cap of £45,000.