25.5.05: Anthony Burton (1) Jennifer Haynes (2) v Guy Kingsley (1) Leonard Harper (2)

This case concerned passenger claims in a road traffic accident. The injuries sustained were significant.

The first Defendant was the driver of the car in which both Claimants were passengers. The driver had a collision with the second Defendants vehicle.

A CFA was entered into with the Claimants at an early stage. A 100% success fee was set after a thorough risk assessment. The circumstances of the accident and severity of the Claimants injuries indicated that this was not a straightforward matter in respect of liability or quantum.

At trial, terms for settlement were agreed which exonerated the first Defendant (driver of the vehicle in which the Claimants were passengers) from any liability.

Judgment was entered against the second Defendant and he was ordered to pay not only the costs of pursuit of the Claimants claim against him but also those costs of the Claimant which were incurred in pursuing the first Defendant.

In addition, it was held that as the Claimants prospects of succeeding were greater than evens, an appropriate success fee would be between 33% - 50%. The Court ultimately allowed a 50% success fee.

At first glance, in view of the circumstances known to the Claimants solicitors at the time they entered into CFA’s, the Court appears to have been relatively harsh in their retrospective risk assessment, however, compared with the 20% allowable in Callery v Gray type matters, the Court have actually been reasonably generous. An additional act of generosity came in the form of allowing the costs incurred in pursuing the first Defendant against the second Defendant (together with the 50% success fee thereon). This amply compensates the Claimants solicitors for the reduction in the success fee.