Atack v Lee & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1712 (16 December 2004)

Atack v Lee & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1712 (16 December 2004)

The reasonableness of a success fee under a CFA in pre-5 October 2003 RTA cases must be assessed based on the risks as they appeared to the solicitor at the time of entering the CFA, considering all circumstances and not by automatic reference to fixed percentages or new CPR rates. In Atack, a 50% success fee was within the reasonable range. In Ellerton, there were no features justifying a success fee above 20%.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1712
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Lee Anthony Atack; Defendant/respondent: Michael Edward Lee; Defendant/respondent: Alan Grechan; Claimant/respondent (ellerton V Harris): Hilda Ellerton; Defendant/appellant (ellerton V Harris): John Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Assessment Appeals From County Courts
Outcome
Atack v Lee: Appeal dismissed. Ellerton v Harris: Appeal allowed to the extent that the success fee should not exceed 20%.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas), Success Fees, Assessment of Costs, Road Traffic Accidents, Reasonableness of Legal Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Law Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) Success Fees Assessment of Costs Road Traffic Accidents Reasonableness of Legal Costs

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Anthony Atack

Claimant/appellant

Michael Edward Lee

Defendant/respondent

Alan Grechan

Defendant/respondent

Hilda Ellerton

Claimant/respondent (ellerton V Harris)

John Harris

Defendant/appellant (ellerton V Harris)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Costs Assessment Appeals From County Courts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is a reasonable and proportionate success fee under a CFA in personal injury claims arising from road traffic accidents prior to 5 October 2003?
  2. 2 Should the court depart from the 20% guideline for success fees in straightforward RTA claims?
  3. 3 How should risk be assessed at the time the CFA is entered into for the purpose of setting a success fee?

Ratio Decidendi

The reasonableness of a success fee under a CFA in pre-5 October 2003 RTA cases must be assessed based on the risks as they appeared to the solicitor at the time of entering the CFA, considering all circumstances and not by automatic reference to fixed percentages or new CPR rates. In Atack, a 50% success fee was within the reasonable range. In Ellerton, there were no features justifying a success fee above 20%.

Court Disposition

Atack v Lee: Appeal dismissed. Ellerton v Harris: Appeal allowed to the extent that the success fee should not exceed 20%.

Orders

  • Atack v Lee: Success fee limited to 50%.
  • Ellerton v Harris: Success fee limited to 20%.