MNO v HKC & Anor [2022] EWHC 2919 (SCCO) (17 November 2022)

MNO v HKC & Anor [2022] EWHC 2919 (SCCO) (17 November 2022)

A 20% first-stage success fee is not reasonable in this case because the only substantial risk was the Part 36 risk, the Litigation Friend was not given a full and fair explanation justifying the 20% figure, and the two-stage structure (with 100% at trial) requires a lower first-stage uplift to avoid overcompensation. The reasonable first-stage success fee is 15%.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2919 (SCCO)
Parties
Claimant: MNO (a protected party, by his Litigation Friend KLM); First Defendant: HKC; Second Defendant: DGS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Solicitor Client Costs (success Fee) Under CPR 46.4 / Costs Assessment Following Personal Injury Settlement
Outcome
Success fee assessed at 15% (not 20%) of profit costs; claimant's solicitors entitled to recover 15% uplift from claimant.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Solicitor Client Costs, CPR 46.4, CPR 46.9, Part 36 Offers, Assessment of Reasonableness, Protected Parties
Civil Procedure Costs Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Solicitor Client Costs CPR 46.4 CPR 46.9 +3 more

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MNO (a protected party, by his Litigation Friend KLM)

Claimant

HKC

First Defendant

DGS

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Solicitor Client Costs (success Fee) Under CPR 46.4 / Costs Assessment Following Personal Injury Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is a reasonable success fee payable by a protected party to solicitors under a two-stage CFA in a high-value personal injury claim?
  2. 2 Does informed consent by a litigation friend to the success fee create a presumption of reasonableness under CPR 46.9(3)?
  3. 3 Is a 20% first-stage success fee reasonable where the only substantial risk is the Part 36 risk and a 100% uplift applies at trial?

Ratio Decidendi

A 20% first-stage success fee is not reasonable in this case because the only substantial risk was the Part 36 risk, the Litigation Friend was not given a full and fair explanation justifying the 20% figure, and the two-stage structure (with 100% at trial) requires a lower first-stage uplift to avoid overcompensation. The reasonable first-stage success fee is 15%.

Court Disposition

Success fee assessed at 15% (not 20%) of profit costs; claimant's solicitors entitled to recover 15% uplift from claimant.

Orders

  • Claimant's solicitors (Irwin Mitchell LLP) may recover a 15% success fee uplift on profit costs from the claimant's damages.
  • Any higher claim for a 20% success fee is disallowed.