Davis (A Child) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2016] EWHC B6 (Costs) (11 January 2016)

Davis (A Child) v Wiltshire Primary Care Trust [2016] EWHC B6 (Costs) (11 January 2016)

It was reasonable for the Claimant to discharge public funding and enter into a CFA with ATE insurance given the restrictions imposed by the Legal Services Commission, the need for expeditious progress, and the greater protection afforded by CFA/ATE arrangements. The additional liabilities (success fee and ATE...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC B6 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Oliver Davis; Litigation Friend: Mrs Lisa Marie Davis; Claimant's Solicitors: Wolferstans; ATE Insurer: FirstAssist Legal Protection; Defendant: Defendant (NHS Primary Care Trust); Defendant's Solicitors: DAC Beachcroft
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Post Settlement, Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Additional liabilities allowed; costs assessed in favour of Claimant.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance, Public Funding, Reasonableness of Costs, Success Fees, Statutory Charge, Part 36 Offers
Civil Procedure Costs Clinical Negligence Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance Public Funding Reasonableness of Costs Success Fees +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 7 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oliver Davis

Claimant

Mrs Lisa Marie Davis

Litigation Friend

Wolferstans

Claimant's Solicitors

FirstAssist Legal Protection

ATE Insurer

Defendant (NHS Primary Care Trust)

Defendant

DAC Beachcroft

Defendant's Solicitors

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Post Settlement, Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was it reasonable for the Claimant to discharge public funding and enter into a CFA with ATE insurance?
  2. 2 Should the additional liabilities (success fee and ATE premium) be allowed?
  3. 3 Is the retrospective application of the success fee permissible?

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonable for the Claimant to discharge public funding and enter into a CFA with ATE insurance given the restrictions imposed by the Legal Services Commission, the need for expeditious progress, and the greater protection afforded by CFA/ATE arrangements. The additional liabilities (success fee and ATE premium) were reasonably and proportionately incurred and are allowed.

Court Disposition

Additional liabilities allowed; costs assessed in favour of Claimant.

Orders

  • Success fee of 67% for solicitors and 25% for counsel allowed.
  • ATE premium of £93,938.51 allowed.