Herbert v HH Law Ltd

Herbert v HH Law Ltd

The appeal was dismissed because the District Judge correctly found that the success fee required an individual risk assessment and was unreasonable at 100% in this case, the ATE premium was properly a solicitor’s disbursement and should have been included in the bill, and there was no basis for the court to investigate alleged illegality in the retainer of the claimant’s new solicitors.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ms Nicky Herbert; Defendant/appellant: HH Law Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (solicitor Client Costs Assessment Appeal) / High Court Appeal From County Court Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Solicitor Client Costs Assessment, After the Event Insurance Premiums, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Costs Law Legal Profession Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Solicitor Client Costs Assessment After the Event Insurance Premiums Professional Conduct

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Nicky Herbert

Claimant/respondent

HH Law Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil (solicitor Client Costs Assessment Appeal) / High Court Appeal From County Court Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in reducing the success fee under the CFA from 100% to 15%
  2. 2 Whether the ATE insurance premium should be treated as a solicitor’s disbursement
  3. 3 Whether the Judge erred in refusing to investigate alleged illegality in the retainer of the claimant’s new solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the District Judge correctly found that the success fee required an individual risk assessment and was unreasonable at 100% in this case, the ATE premium was properly a solicitor’s disbursement and should have been included in the bill, and there was no basis for the court to investigate alleged illegality in the retainer of the claimant’s new solicitors.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed in full
  • District Judge’s assessment of success fee at 15% upheld