Thornley v Ministry Of Defence

Thornley v Ministry Of Defence

There was no material breach of the CFA Regulations as BTE insurance was exhausted and no further indemnity was available; entering into a CFA was reasonable. The success fee awarded by the Costs Judge was excessive and should be reduced to 15% for solicitors and nil for counsel. Hourly rates allowed were high but within permissible brackets for this complex case, except that travel should be allowed only at guideline rates. The assessment of time spent on documents was reasonable and not open to appellate interference.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Stewart Robert Thornley (a child, by his mother and litigation friend Lavinia Thornley); Defendant/appellant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal (detailed Assessment) / Judgment on Appeal From Regional Costs Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Hourly Rates, Travel Costs, Personal Injury
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Detailed Assessment of Costs Hourly Rates Travel Costs Personal Injury

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stewart Robert Thornley (a child, by his mother and litigation friend Lavinia Thornley)

Claimant/respondent

Ministry of Defence

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal (detailed Assessment) / Judgment on Appeal From Regional Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a material breach of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 (CFAR)
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable to enter into a CFA after BTE insurance was exhausted
  3. 3 Whether the success fee awarded was excessive

Ratio Decidendi

There was no material breach of the CFA Regulations as BTE insurance was exhausted and no further indemnity was available; entering into a CFA was reasonable. The success fee awarded by the Costs Judge was excessive and should be reduced to 15% for solicitors and nil for counsel. Hourly rates allowed were high but within permissible brackets for this complex case, except that travel should be allowed only at guideline rates. The assessment of time spent on documents was reasonable and not open to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part, dismissed in part.

Orders

  • Success fee for solicitors reduced to 15%.
  • No success fee allowed for counsel.