Fortune v Roe
Where liability has been admitted and judgment entered for damages to be assessed, with no issue of contributory negligence, the only material risk to solicitors' costs arises if a Part 36 offer is made and not beaten. In such circumstances, a 100% success fee is unreasonable; a 20% success fee is appropriate to reflect the limited risk.
- Parties
- Claimant/appellant: Arlene Fortune; Defendant/respondent: Jonathan Roe
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 10 November 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Judge's Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Personal Injury, Costs Assessment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Arlene Fortune
Claimant/appellant
Jonathan Roe
Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Costs Judge's Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a 100% success fee under a Conditional Fee Agreement was reasonable given the risk profile at the time the agreement was entered into
- 2 Proper construction of 'win' under the CFA and its impact on recoverability of costs
- 3 Effect of two-stage success fee structure on reasonableness of the success fee
Ratio Decidendi
Where liability has been admitted and judgment entered for damages to be assessed, with no issue of contributory negligence, the only material risk to solicitors' costs arises if a Part 36 offer is made and not beaten. In such circumstances, a 100% success fee is unreasonable; a 20% success fee is appropriate to reflect the limited risk.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The success fee is assessed at 20%
- No order for a 100% success fee
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment