Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB) (21 March 2018)

Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB) (21 March 2018)

The District Judge correctly found that the presumptions of reasonableness under CPR 46.9(3) did not arise due to lack of informed approval and absence of risk assessment; the success fee was excessive and reduced to 15%. The ATE premium was properly classified as a solicitor's disbursement and should have been included in the bill, not the cash account. Allegations of illegality in the retainer were unsupported and properly referred to the SRA.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 580
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ms Nicky Herbert; Defendant/appellant: HH Law Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Assessment of Solicitor's Bill
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, ATE Insurance Premiums, Solicitor Client Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees ATE Insurance Premiums Solicitor Client 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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Nicky Herbert

Claimant/respondent

HH Law Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Assessment of Solicitor's Bill

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the success fee under the CFA was reasonable and properly assessed
  2. 2 Whether the ATE insurance premium should be treated as a solicitor's disbursement
  3. 3 Whether the retainer of the new solicitors was tainted by illegality

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge correctly found that the presumptions of reasonableness under CPR 46.9(3) did not arise due to lack of informed approval and absence of risk assessment; the success fee was excessive and reduced to 15%. The ATE premium was properly classified as a solicitor's disbursement and should have been included in the bill, not the cash account. Allegations of illegality in the retainer were unsupported and properly referred to the SRA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Success fee reduced to 15%
  • ATE premium classified as solicitor's disbursement and excluded from cash account