Fortune v Roe [2011] EWHC 2953 (QB) (10 November 2011)

Fortune v Roe [2011] EWHC 2953 (QB) (10 November 2011)

Given that liability was admitted and judgment entered before the CFA was signed, the only material risk was failing to beat a Part 36 offer, which did not justify a 100% success fee. A 20% success fee was reasonable in the circumstances.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2953
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Arlene Fortune; Defendant/respondent: Jonathan Roe
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Assessment) / Appeal From Costs Judge's Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Personal Injury, Costs Assessment, Part 36 Offers
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Personal Injury Costs Assessment Part 36 Offers

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

Parties

Arlene Fortune

Claimant/appellant

Jonathan Roe

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Assessment) / Appeal From Costs Judge's Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a 100% success fee under a Conditional Fee Agreement was reasonable given the risk profile at the time the CFA was entered into
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'win' under the CFA and its impact on risk assessment for success fees

Ratio Decidendi

Given that liability was admitted and judgment entered before the CFA was signed, the only material risk was failing to beat a Part 36 offer, which did not justify a 100% success fee. A 20% success fee was reasonable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Success fee assessed at 20% stands
  • No increase to 100% success fee