Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Spicer v Greene King Brewing And Retailing Ltd [2026] EWCC 18 (17 April 2026)
In a child personal injury approval hearing, the court approved settlement but limited deductions from damages to a £330 plus VAT success fee and disallowed the ATE premium.
Sousou Connect Ltd v Abel [2026] EWHC 665 (Comm) (20 March 2026)
The High Court dismissed SCL’s claim that an oral capital-introduction deal was struck at Annabel’s, and rejected its alternative quantum meruit claim.
Claim for a capital-introduction success fee dismissed; no oral contract proved and no quantum meruit recovery allowed beyond the retainer.
The reasonable recoverable success fee under the Claimant's CFAs is 50%, reflecting the real litigation risk as objectively assessed at the time the CFAs were entered into. The claim was strong on liability but not without risk, particularly given the anticipated robust defence, evidential uncertainties, and the possibility of only nominal damages. The higher staged success fees claimed (up to 100%) were not justified by the actual risk profile. The proper uplift, by reference to the Ready Reckoner and the authorities, is 50%.
Source excerpt
FKJ v RVT & Ors [2025] EWHC 1963 (SCCO) (28 July 2025)
Costs Judge Leonard assessed recoverable success fees under pre-commencement CFAs in a private information claim and held that a 50% final-stage fee was reasonable.
Richardson & Ors v Slater & Gordon UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 1220 (SCCO) (19 May 2025)
The High Court held that the retainer documents were enforceable CFAs, not unlawful DBAs, and that the defendant’s consumer-contract and costs disclosures were adequate.
The court rejected challenges to the firm’s CFA retainers, holding they were not DBAs and complied with consumer contract rules; success fees and hourly rates remained for assessment.
Seth Law was not entitled to deduct a success fee from the Claimant’s damages without court approval. The contractual basis for the claimed success fee of £73,750 was not established, as the CFA provided for a success fee as a percentage of basic charges, not damages, and the amount claimed exceeded the reasonable and contractual entitlement. The reasonable success fee, reflecting the actual risk and lack of informed consent to a higher percentage, was assessed at 15% of basic charges, amounting to £16,502.64. The overpayment of £57,247.36 must be repaid to the Claimant.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that a success fee under a CFA cannot be included in a 1975 Act award for reasonable financial provision.
Objection 1 was not an abuse of process as it followed the outcome of prior proceedings and did not result in unjust harassment; however, the Defendant was not entitled to deliver the 2016 bill as no right to payment had accrued under the conditional fee agreement at termination, and the 2012 bill was similarly not payable when delivered. For work between December 2012 and March 2013, Defendant could charge under CFA 2 until superseded. Retrospective application of CFA 2 to work outside CFA 1 scope was reasonable for basic charges but not for success fees. The 5% postponement success fees und…
Source excerpt
Explore more
