Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB) (21 March 2018)

Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB) (21 March 2018)

The court held that the success fee must be assessed by reference to the risk in the individual case and not solely by reference to market practice or business model; informed client approval is required for the presumptions in CPR 46.9(3) to apply. The ATE premium, as part of the solicitor's professional duty in the retainer, is a solicitor's disbursement and must be included in the bill of costs. The court was correct not to investigate alleged illegality in the retainer absent substantive evidence.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 580 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Ms Nicky Herbert; Defendant/appellant: HH Law Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal (costs Assessment) / High Court Appeal From County Court Costs Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Costs Assessment, Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Success Fee Reasonableness, After the Event (ate) Insurance Premiums, Solicitor's Disbursements, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Costs Law Solicitor Client Costs Assessment Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Success Fee Reasonableness After the Event (ate) Insurance Premiums Solicitor's Disbursements 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms Nicky Herbert

Claimant/respondent

HH Law Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (costs Assessment) / High Court Appeal From County Court Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the success fee under the CFA was reasonable and properly assessed at 100% or should be reduced
  2. 2 Whether the ATE insurance premium should be treated as a solicitor's disbursement and included in the bill of costs
  3. 3 Whether the court should have investigated allegations of illegality in the retainer of the claimant's new solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the success fee must be assessed by reference to the risk in the individual case and not solely by reference to market practice or business model; informed client approval is required for the presumptions in CPR 46.9(3) to apply. The ATE premium, as part of the solicitor's professional duty in the retainer, is a solicitor's disbursement and must be included in the bill of costs. The court was correct not to investigate alleged illegality in the retainer absent substantive evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Success fee to remain assessed at 15%
  • ATE premium to be treated as a solicitor's disbursement and excluded from the cash account