Manning & Anor v King's College Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2954 (QB) (10 November 2011)

Manning & Anor v King's College Hospital NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2954 (QB) (10 November 2011)

The refusal to grant full relief from sanctions for failure to give notice of the success fee was disproportionate and not justified, as there was no substantive prejudice to the defendants and any prejudice in the detailed assessment could be compensated in costs. The ATE insurance premium incurred during the period of default is recoverable, as the sanction should only apply to the specific liability affected by the default. The 100% success fee in the fresh CFAs was justified given the real risk at the time of agreement, as the outcome of the main issues was genuinely in doubt.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2954
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Nicholas Andrew Manning; Claimant/appellant: Michael John Beggs; Defendant/respondent: King's College Hospital NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Assessment) / High Court (queen's Bench Division), on Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas), Relief From Sanctions, After the Event (ate) Insurance, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Notice Requirements Under CPR, Success Fees, Interpretation of CPR 44.3 B and 44.15
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) Relief From Sanctions After the Event (ate) Insurance Detailed Assessment of Costs Notice Requirements Under CPR Success Fees +1 more

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Andrew Manning

Claimant/appellant

Michael John Beggs

Claimant/appellant

King's College Hospital NHS Trust

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Assessment) / High Court (queen's Bench Division), on Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted for failure to give notice of success fees in fresh CFAs under CPR 44.3B(1)(c)
  2. 2 Whether ATE insurance premium incurred during the period of default is recoverable
  3. 3 Whether 100% success fee in fresh CFAs was justified given the risk at the time of agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to grant full relief from sanctions for failure to give notice of the success fee was disproportionate and not justified, as there was no substantive prejudice to the defendants and any prejudice in the detailed assessment could be compensated in costs. The ATE insurance premium incurred during the period of default is recoverable, as the sanction should only apply to the specific liability affected by the default. The 100% success fee in the fresh CFAs was justified given the real risk at the time of agreement, as the outcome of the main issues was genuinely in doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Relief from sanctions granted for the full period; claimants' solicitors and counsel entitled to recover success fees in the fresh CFAs for the whole period despite non-compliance with notice rules.
  • ATE insurance premium of £70,875 incurred during the period of default is recoverable.