Younan v First Group Plc

Younan v First Group Plc

There is no proper basis for an overall percentage reduction of the Claimant’s costs for misconduct; only specific costs incurred as a result of exaggeration of symptoms are to be disallowed. It was reasonable to instruct leading counsel. The CFA was not unenforceable as no interest was proven under Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii). Relief from sanctions is granted except for the period between 24 September 2009 and 20 December 2010, during which no success fees are recoverable. Success fees for Percy Hughes & Roberts and Mr Bell are reduced to 20% and 18% respectively; all other success fees are recoverable as claimed.

Parties
Claimant: Hany Younan; Defendant: First Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (post Personal Injury Trial) / Detailed Assessment of Costs Following Judgment and Settlement
Outcome
Claimant’s costs to be assessed with specific disallowances for costs incurred due to exaggeration of symptoms; no overall percentage reduction; relief from sanctions granted except for specified period; success fees adjusted as specified.
Legal Topics
Costs Assessment, Conditional Fee Agreements, Relief From Sanctions, Success Fees, Conduct of Parties, Fraud Allegations, Expert Evidence
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Costs Costs Assessment Conditional Fee Agreements Relief From Sanctions Success Fees Conduct of Parties +2 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hany Younan

Claimant

First Group PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (post Personal Injury Trial) / Detailed Assessment of Costs Following Judgment and Settlement

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant’s costs should be reduced for misconduct (exaggeration and alleged fabrication of evidence)
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable to instruct leading counsel
  3. 3 Whether the CFA was unenforceable due to breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii)

Ratio Decidendi

There is no proper basis for an overall percentage reduction of the Claimant’s costs for misconduct; only specific costs incurred as a result of exaggeration of symptoms are to be disallowed. It was reasonable to instruct leading counsel. The CFA was not unenforceable as no interest was proven under Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii). Relief from sanctions is granted except for the period between 24 September 2009 and 20 December 2010, during which no success fees are recoverable. Success fees for Percy Hughes & Roberts and Mr Bell are reduced to 20% and 18% respectively; all other success fees are recoverable as claimed.

Court Disposition

Claimant’s costs to be assessed with specific disallowances for costs incurred due to exaggeration of symptoms; no overall percentage reduction; relief from sanctions granted except for specified period; success fees adjusted as specified.

Orders

  • Disallow costs incurred as a result of exaggeration of symptoms.
  • No overall percentage reduction of costs for misconduct.