header-logo header-logo

27 October 2011
Issue: 7486 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

100% success fee claim sinks

Court of Appeal rules on landmark UK costs case

The Court of Appeal has given judgment on the biggest costs case in English legal history.

Motto v Trafigura [2011] EWCA Civ 1150 concerned Leigh, Day & Co’s claim for £100m costs for its group action on behalf of about 30,000 citizens of the Ivory Coast against Trafigura. This followed an incident where a Trafigura-chartered ship hired contractors to dispose of toxic waste, which was then dumped in Abidjan, the Ivorian capital. The case settled for just under £1,000 per claimant plus costs.

The court upheld Trafigura’s appeal on proportionality, holding that any item on the bill is only to be allowed if it was necessary. It held Leigh, Day & Co could recover costs in respect of “abandoned claims” in so far as it was “reasonable and proportionate to plead, investigate and pursue them”.

The court upheld the costs judge’s determination of a 58% success fee rather than the 100% claimed by Leigh, Day & Co. It held that the cost of advertising to or identifying potential clients, and the cost of arranging a conditional fee agreement (CFA) are not recoverable costs amd that costs incurred before CFAs have been entered into cannot be recovered.

Delivering judgment, Lord Neuberger said: “Until the CFA is signed, the potential claimant is not merely not a claimant: he is not a client…It seems to me that the expenses of getting business, whether advertising to the public as potential clients, making a presentation to a potential client, or discussing a possible instruction with a potential client, should not normally be treated as attributable to, and payable by, the ultimate client or clients. Rather, such expenses should generally be treated as part of a solicitor’s general overheads or expenses, which can be taken into account when assessing appropriate levels of charging, such as hourly rates.”

In a statement, Leigh, Day & Co said: “We’re pleased that the Court of Appeal has largely upheld the decision of Master Hurst that we’ve always been content with. This is another step within the detailed assessment of our costs and we now move on to going through the bill of costs, item by item.”
 

Issue: 7486 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll