Manning & Anor v King's College Hospital NHS Trust

Manning & Anor v King's College Hospital NHS Trust

The Master’s refusal to grant full relief from sanctions was flawed, as the only prejudice suffered by the defendants was compensable in costs and the sanction imposed was disproportionate; the intention behind the fresh CFAs was that solicitors and counsel remained at risk unless the claimants succeeded on the issues tried, justifying the 100% success fee; the ATE insurance premium incurred during the period of default was recoverable as the breach did not relate to the insurance policy itself.

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 / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Relief From Sanctions, Assessment of Costs, After the Event Insurance, Interpretation of Contracts
Civil Procedure Costs Contract Law Conditional Fee Agreements Relief From Sanctions Assessment of Costs After the Event Insurance Interpretation of Contracts

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted for failure to give proper notice of CFAs and ATE insurance.
  2. 2 Whether the 100% success fee in the fresh CFAs was justified given the risk.
  3. 3 Whether the ATE insurance premium incurred during the period of default was recoverable.

Ratio Decidendi

The Master’s refusal to grant full relief from sanctions was flawed, as the only prejudice suffered by the defendants was compensable in costs and the sanction imposed was disproportionate; the intention behind the fresh CFAs was that solicitors and counsel remained at risk unless the claimants succeeded on the issues tried, justifying the 100% success fee; the ATE insurance premium incurred during the period of default was recoverable as the breach did not relate to the insurance policy itself.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Claimants’ solicitors and counsel entitled to recover success fees in the fresh CFAs for the whole period despite non-compliance with notice rules.
  • Claimants entitled to recover ATE insurance premium incurred during the period of default.