Collet v Smith & Anor [2011] EWHC 90208 (Costs) (20 May 2011)

Collet v Smith & Anor [2011] EWHC 90208 (Costs) (20 May 2011)

The appropriate success fee must be determined by the risks as they appeared when the CFA was entered into. For the claimant's solicitors and leading counsel, the case was finely balanced on liability, justifying a 90% success fee. There was no quantum or enforceability risk to solicitors or counsel, so no additional uplift was justified. For junior counsel, whose CFAs were entered into after liability was admitted, there was no real risk, so no success fee was allowed. The court is not bound to reduce success fees on proportionality or Article 6 ECHR grounds in this context, as the facts are distinguishable from MGN and the House of Lords' decision in Campbell v MGN (No 2) remains binding.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 90208 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Ben Collett; First Defendant: Mr Gary Smith; Second Defendant: Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment Following Personal Injury Litigation / Detailed Assessment of Success Fees Under Cfas
Outcome
Success fees assessed: claimant's solicitors 90%, Mr Block QC 90%, Mr Hartley QC nil, Mr Boyle nil.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Detailed Assessment, Proportionality, Sports Injury Liability
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Detailed Assessment Proportionality Sports Injury Liability

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ben Collett

Claimant

Mr Gary Smith

First Defendant

Middlesbrough Football & Athletic Company (1986) Ltd

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment Following Personal Injury Litigation / Detailed Assessment of Success Fees Under Cfas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the reasonable and proportionate success fee for the claimant's solicitors and counsel under their CFAs?
  2. 2 Was there a real risk justifying the claimed success fees?
  3. 3 Should the court take into account Article 6 ECHR and proportionality in assessing success fees?

Ratio Decidendi

The appropriate success fee must be determined by the risks as they appeared when the CFA was entered into. For the claimant's solicitors and leading counsel, the case was finely balanced on liability, justifying a 90% success fee. There was no quantum or enforceability risk to solicitors or counsel, so no additional uplift was justified. For junior counsel, whose CFAs were entered into after liability was admitted, there was no real risk, so no success fee was allowed. The court is not bound to reduce success fees on proportionality or Article 6 ECHR grounds in this context, as the facts are distinguishable from MGN and the House of Lords' decision in Campbell v MGN (No 2) remains binding.

Court Disposition

Success fees assessed: claimant's solicitors 90%, Mr Block QC 90%, Mr Hartley QC nil, Mr Boyle nil.

Orders

  • Claimant's solicitors' success fee allowed at 90%.
  • Mr Block QC's success fee allowed at 90%.