Fortune v Roe

Where liability has been admitted and judgment entered prior to the CFA, the risk of not recovering costs is negligible. The only relevant risk is failing to beat a Part 36 offer, which does not justify a 100% success fee. Staging of success fees does not alter this assessment. Therefore, a 20% success fee is reasonable.

Parties: Claimant: Arlene Fortune; Defendant: Jonathan Roe
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 04 November 2010
Procedural Posture: Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Success Fee Under Conditional Fee Agreement
Outcome: Success fee assessed at 20%.
Legal Topics: Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Assessment of Costs, Personal Injury

Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Assessment of Costs Personal Injury

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8

Parties

Arlene Fortune

Claimant

Jonathan Roe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment on Success Fee Under Conditional Fee Agreement

Legal Issues

1 Whether a 100% success fee under the Claimant's Conditional Fee Agreement is reasonable given liability was admitted prior to signing the CFA
2 Whether complexities in quantum assessment justify a higher success fee
3 Impact of staging success fees in CFA where liability is already admitted

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Success fee assessed at 20%.

Orders

Claimant's success fee limited to 20% of base costs (£18,723.41 plus VAT of £3,276.59, total £22,000).
Defendant's costs of this issue (£4,774.38) to be set off against Claimant's agreed costs.