NJL v PTE

NJL v PTE

The District Judge's assessment of a 65% success fee was unsupported by quantitative risk analysis and contrary to established authority. Where liability is admitted and the principal risk relates to Part 36 offers made late in proceedings, the appropriate success fee is 20%, which reduces to 12.5% under CPR 45.19.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: NJL; Defendant/appellant: PTE
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fee Assessment, Costs, Road Traffic Accident, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fee Assessment Costs Road Traffic Accident Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

NJL

Claimant/respondent

PTE

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the appropriate success fee for the claimant's solicitors and counsel under CFA2 and CFA3 given liability was admitted before the CFA was entered into?
  2. 2 Did District Judge Searl err in awarding a 65% success fee instead of the statutory 12.5% or 20%?

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge's assessment of a 65% success fee was unsupported by quantitative risk analysis and contrary to established authority. Where liability is admitted and the principal risk relates to Part 36 offers made late in proceedings, the appropriate success fee is 20%, which reduces to 12.5% under CPR 45.19.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Success fee for both CFA2 and CFA3 shall be 12.5%