MNO v HKC & Anor

MNO v HKC & Anor

A 20% first-stage success fee is not reasonable in a two-stage CFA where the only substantial risk is Part 36; 15% is the maximum reasonable uplift, as informed consent was not adequately established and industry guidance supports a lower figure.

Parties
Claimant: MNO; Litigation Friend: KLM; First Defendant: HKC; Second Defendant: DGS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment of Solicitor Client Costs
Outcome
Success fee limited to 15% for first stage; 20% claim rejected.
Legal Topics
Success Fees, Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitor Client Costs, Part 36 Offers, Indemnity Basis Assessment

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

Parties

MNO

Claimant

KLM

Litigation Friend

HKC

First Defendant

DGS

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment of Solicitor Client Costs

  1. 1 What is the reasonable success fee payable by the claimant to his solicitors under a two-stage CFA?
  2. 2 Was the Litigation Friend's approval of the success fee informed, thereby creating a presumption of reasonableness under CPR 46.9(3)?
  3. 3 Should the first stage success fee exceed 15% in light of industry guidance and relevant case law?

Ratio Decidendi

A 20% first-stage success fee is not reasonable in a two-stage CFA where the only substantial risk is Part 36; 15% is the maximum reasonable uplift, as informed consent was not adequately established and industry guidance supports a lower figure.

Court Disposition

Success fee limited to 15% for first stage; 20% claim rejected.

Orders

  • Solicitors may recover a 15% success fee uplift on profit costs from the claimant.
  • Any amount above 15% is disallowed.