Bright v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2014] EWHC 1557 (QB) (15 May 2014)

Bright v Motor Insurers' Bureau [2014] EWHC 1557 (QB) (15 May 2014)

The Costs Judge did not err in principle or reach a plainly wrong conclusion in assessing the reasonable success fee at 30%, given the low risk on liability, the main risk being contributory negligence and Part 36 offers, and the evidence available at the time of the CFA. The staging and level of the success fee were properly considered and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 1557
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mrs Carol Bright; Second Defendant/respondent: Motor Insurers' Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Costs Judge's Order (detailed Assessment of Costs) / Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Personal Injury, Road Traffic Accident
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Detailed Assessment of Costs Personal Injury Road Traffic Accident

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Carol Bright

Claimant/appellant

Motor Insurers' Bureau

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Costs Judge's Order (detailed Assessment of Costs) / Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Costs Judge erred in reducing the solicitors' success fee from 75% to 30% under a CFA Lite in a high value personal injury claim
  2. 2 Whether the staging and level of the success fee were reasonable given the risks at the time of entering the CFA

Ratio Decidendi

The Costs Judge did not err in principle or reach a plainly wrong conclusion in assessing the reasonable success fee at 30%, given the low risk on liability, the main risk being contributory negligence and Part 36 offers, and the evidence available at the time of the CFA. The staging and level of the success fee were properly considered and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Detailed assessment of costs remitted to Master Rowley or another Costs Judge if not practicable
  • Claimant to pay the MIB their costs of the appeal, to be assessed if not agreed