Barham v Athreya & Anor [2007] EW Misc 6 (EWCC) (15 June 2007)

Barham v Athreya & Anor [2007] EW Misc 6 (EWCC) (15 June 2007)

The costs judge did not err in law or principle in reducing the success fee uplift from 100% to 67%. The judge was entitled to find that the risk assessment was over-pessimistic and that a staged success fee would have been more appropriate. The decision was within the reasonable discretion of the costs judge, and there was no misdirection or failure to consider relevant factors.

Citation
[2007] EW Misc 6 (EWCC)
Parties
Claimant: Lisa Barham; First Defendant: Dr Athreya; Second Defendant: Barking, Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Clinical Negligence
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Detailed Assessment of Costs Clinical Negligence

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lisa Barham

Claimant

Dr Athreya

First Defendant

Barking, Havering & Redbridge NHS Trust

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the costs judge erred in reducing the success fee uplift from 100% to 67% under a conditional fee agreement in a clinical negligence case
  2. 2 Whether the costs judge failed to consider relevant risk factors in the CFA
  3. 3 Whether a staged success fee is required for a 100% uplift

Ratio Decidendi

The costs judge did not err in law or principle in reducing the success fee uplift from 100% to 67%. The judge was entitled to find that the risk assessment was over-pessimistic and that a staged success fee would have been more appropriate. The decision was within the reasonable discretion of the costs judge, and there was no misdirection or failure to consider relevant factors.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Success fee uplift to remain at 67% as assessed by the costs judge
  • No adjustment to the detailed assessment of costs