Ghising v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 3706 (QB) (17 December 2015)

Ghising v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 3706 (QB) (17 December 2015)

The Master was wrong to conclude that the risk assessment for the success fee was materially different in December 2012 compared to July 2012, as the evidence did not support a significant change in risk. The CFA wording was not ambiguous and was capable of retrospective effect. The absence of prejudice to the respondent was not fundamental but was properly considered. The appeal is allowed on the point of principle that a retrospective success fee is allowable in these circumstances.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 3706 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Roshan Ghising; Defendant/respondent: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Costs Assessment Decision of Senior Courts Costs Office
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Retrospective Success Fees, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Retrospective Success Fees Costs Assessment

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roshan Ghising

Claimant/appellant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Costs Assessment Decision of Senior Courts Costs Office

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a retrospective success fee under a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) is allowable in principle in the circumstances of this case
  2. 2 Whether the risk assessment for the success fee materially changed between July 2012 and December 2012
  3. 3 Whether the late notification of the CFA prejudiced the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The Master was wrong to conclude that the risk assessment for the success fee was materially different in December 2012 compared to July 2012, as the evidence did not support a significant change in risk. The CFA wording was not ambiguous and was capable of retrospective effect. The absence of prejudice to the respondent was not fundamental but was properly considered. The appeal is allowed on the point of principle that a retrospective success fee is allowable in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed on the point of principle regarding retrospective success fees under the CFA.
  • Further detailed assessment to be conducted on the papers; parties to agree an order and timescale for written representations.