Fortune v Roe [2010] EWHC 90180 (Costs) (04 November 2010)

A 100% success fee is unreasonable where, at the time the CFA was entered into, liability had already been admitted and judgment entered, eliminating the risk of not recovering costs. The only remaining risk was failing to beat a Part 36 offer, which justifies a 20% success fee, not 100%.

Citation: [2010] EWHC 90180 (Costs)
Parties: Claimant: Arlene Fortune; Defendant: Jonathan Roe
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 04 November 2010
Procedural Posture: Detailed Assessment of Costs / Post Settlement Costs Assessment
Outcome: Success fee assessed at 20%
Legal Topics: Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Personal Injury, Costs Assessment

Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Personal Injury Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Arlene Fortune

Claimant

Jonathan Roe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Post Settlement Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

1 Whether a 100% success fee under the Claimant's CFA is reasonable given the circumstances at the time the CFA was entered into
2 Whether the risk assessment justifies a 100% success fee when liability had already been admitted and judgment entered

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Success fee assessed at 20%

Orders

The Defendant to pay a 20% success fee to the Claimant, amounting to £18,723.41 plus VAT of £3,276.59, total £22,000.
The Defendant's costs of this issue assessed at £4,774.38 to be set off against the Claimant's agreed costs.