Burton & Anor v Kingsley & Anor [2005] EWHC 1034 (QB) (25 May 2005)

Burton & Anor v Kingsley & Anor [2005] EWHC 1034 (QB) (25 May 2005)

The appropriate uplift under the CFAs is 50%, not 100%, as the case was not straightforward but the risk was not so high as to justify a 100% uplift. Indemnity costs are not justified because the defendants' conduct in maintaining denial of liability until trial was not unreasonable given the uncertainties as to liability.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 1034
Parties
Claimant: Anthony Burton; Claimant: Jennifer Haynes; First Defendant: Guy Kingsley; Second Defendant: Leonard Harper
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim Arising From Road Traffic Accident / Post Settlement, Judicial Determination of Costs Issues
Outcome
Judgment for claimants against first defendant on liability; claims against second defendant dismissed; damages to be assessed; costs issues determined as per judgment.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs Assessment, Indemnity Costs, Success Fee Uplift
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements Costs Assessment Indemnity Costs Success Fee Uplift

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Burton

Claimant

Jennifer Haynes

Claimant

Guy Kingsley

First Defendant

Leonard Harper

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim Arising From Road Traffic Accident / Post Settlement, Judicial Determination of Costs Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable percentage uplift under the claimants' conditional fee agreements?
  2. 2 Should the claimants be awarded costs on the indemnity basis or standard basis?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate uplift under the CFAs is 50%, not 100%, as the case was not straightforward but the risk was not so high as to justify a 100% uplift. Indemnity costs are not justified because the defendants' conduct in maintaining denial of liability until trial was not unreasonable given the uncertainties as to liability.

Court Disposition

Judgment for claimants against first defendant on liability; claims against second defendant dismissed; damages to be assessed; costs issues determined as per judgment.

Orders

  • Claimants allowed a 50% uplift under their CFAs, not 100%.
  • Claimants' costs in relation to liability to be assessed on the standard basis, not indemnity basis.