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 fresh CFAs was disproportionate and not justified, as there was no substantive prejudice to the defendants and any procedural prejudice could be compensated in costs. The ATE insurance premium was recoverable, as the breach related to CFAs, not the insurance policy. The 100% success fee under the fresh CFAs was justified by the real risk at the time, given the issues outstanding and the possibility of losing on causation and quantum.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2954 (QB)
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 Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas), Relief From Sanctions, Notice of Funding, After the Event (ate) Insurance, Success Fees, Detailed Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Law Clinical Negligence Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) Relief From Sanctions Notice of Funding After the Event (ate) Insurance 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 Appeal From Senior Court Costs Office

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted for failure to give proper notice of CFAs and success fees under CPR and Practice Directions
  2. 2 Whether ATE insurance premium is recoverable when notice requirements were breached
  3. 3 Whether 100% success fee under fresh CFAs post-claimant's death was justified given the risk profile

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to grant full relief from sanctions for failure to give notice of the fresh CFAs was disproportionate and not justified, as there was no substantive prejudice to the defendants and any procedural prejudice could be compensated in costs. The ATE insurance premium was recoverable, as the breach related to CFAs, not the insurance policy. The 100% success fee under the fresh CFAs was justified by the real risk at the time, given the issues outstanding and the possibility of losing on causation and quantum.

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 under the fresh CFAs.
  • ATE insurance premium of £70,875 recoverable.