Duffield v WW Morrison Supermarkets Ltd [2025] EWCC 35 (01 July 2025)

Duffield v WW Morrison Supermarkets Ltd [2025] EWCC 35 (01 July 2025)

The judge erred in law by limiting the success fee deduction to 10% of damages and by refusing to allow deduction of the ATE premium. The correct approach is to allow deduction of both the contractually agreed success fee and the ATE premium, provided they are within the statutory caps and informed consent was given. The proportionality of the ATE premium is not a relevant consideration.

Citation
[2025] EWCC 35
Parties
Claimant: Master Brendan Duffield (a minor, by his mother and Litigation Friend Ms Sandra Matuleviciute); Defendant: WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Child Claim / Appeal From County Court Decision on Deductions From Damages
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Success Fee Deductions, ATE Insurance Premium, Child Claimant Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Civil Procedure Rules Part 21.12
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Success Fee Deductions ATE Insurance Premium Child Claimant Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Civil Procedure Rules Part 21.12

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Master Brendan Duffield (a minor, by his mother and Litigation Friend Ms Sandra Matuleviciute)

Claimant

WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Child Claim / Appeal From County Court Decision on Deductions From Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in limiting the success fee deduction to 10% of damages instead of the contractual amount subject to CPR 21.12 caps
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to allow deduction of the ATE insurance premium from the child's damages

Ratio Decidendi

The judge erred in law by limiting the success fee deduction to 10% of damages and by refusing to allow deduction of the ATE premium. The correct approach is to allow deduction of both the contractually agreed success fee and the ATE premium, provided they are within the statutory caps and informed consent was given. The proportionality of the ATE premium is not a relevant consideration.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Ms Matuleviciute is entitled to deduct from damages the success fee of £450 and the ATE premium of £675.
  • Paragraph 3 of the judge's judgment is varied accordingly.