Thornley v Ministry Of Defence [2010] EWHC 2584 (QB) (14 October 2010)

Thornley v Ministry Of Defence [2010] EWHC 2584 (QB) (14 October 2010)

There was no material breach of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations as BTE insurance was exhausted and the Claimant was properly advised; entering into a CFA was reasonable in the circumstances; the success fee awarded to solicitors was excessive and should be reduced to 15%, and no success fee should be awarded to counsel as there was no real risk of non-payment; hourly rates were high but within a permissible bracket for this complex case, except that travel time should be allowed only at guideline rates; the time allowed for documents was reasonable given the case complexity.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2584
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stewart Robert Thornley (a child, by his mother and litigation friend Lavinia Thornley); Defendant/appellant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Detailed Assessment, Hourly Rates, Travel Costs, Personal Injury
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Detailed Assessment Hourly Rates Travel Costs 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stewart Robert Thornley (a child, by his mother and litigation friend Lavinia Thornley)

Claimant/respondent

Ministry of Defence

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a material breach of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 (CFAR) rendering the CFA void
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable to enter into a CFA after BTE insurance was exhausted
  3. 3 Whether the success fee awarded to solicitors and counsel was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material breach of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations as BTE insurance was exhausted and the Claimant was properly advised; entering into a CFA was reasonable in the circumstances; the success fee awarded to solicitors was excessive and should be reduced to 15%, and no success fee should be awarded to counsel as there was no real risk of non-payment; hourly rates were high but within a permissible bracket for this complex case, except that travel time should be allowed only at guideline rates; the time allowed for documents was reasonable given the case complexity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part

Orders

  • Success fee for solicitors reduced to 15%
  • No success fee allowed for counsel