KU (A Child) v LCC

KU (A Child) v LCC

A single-stage success fee of 100% was unreasonable; a 50% success fee would have been appropriate. The CFA did not allow for different success fees for different periods, and the court has no power to direct different rates for different periods under the statutory and regulatory scheme. The district judge erred in reducing the success fee for later periods, and Judge Stewart QC was correct to hold that the success fee must remain the same throughout.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: KU (a child, by her mother and litigation friend PU); Defendants/appellants: Liverpool City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Declaratory answers given; lower court orders undisturbed due to procedural posture.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Costs Assessment, Practice Directions
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Costs Assessment Practice Directions

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KU (a child, by her mother and litigation friend PU)

Claimant/respondent

Liverpool City Council

Defendants/appellants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was a success fee of 100% appropriate on this CFA at the time when it was made?
  2. 2 Does the CFA allow contractually for the possibility of a different success fee on the detailed assessment from the success fee on the main claim?
  3. 3 Does the court have the power to direct that a success fee is recoverable at different rates for different periods of the proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

A single-stage success fee of 100% was unreasonable; a 50% success fee would have been appropriate. The CFA did not allow for different success fees for different periods, and the court has no power to direct different rates for different periods under the statutory and regulatory scheme. The district judge erred in reducing the success fee for later periods, and Judge Stewart QC was correct to hold that the success fee must remain the same throughout.

Court Disposition

Declaratory answers given; lower court orders undisturbed due to procedural posture.

Orders

  • A single-stage success fee of 50% would have been appropriate throughout, including detailed assessment.
  • No power for the court to direct different success fee rates for different periods.