0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Ryder v Devon Partnership NHS Trust, Bristol County Court, 14 May 2004

27 May 2004
The issues

Costs – Detailed Assessment – Success Fee – Risk Assessment Not Disclosed

The facts

Claimant brought an action for personal injuries against the Defendant. The claim was compromised. An Order was made by consent that the Claimant’s costs be paid by the Defendant. The Claimant’s Bill of Costs included a claim for a success fee claimed at 80%. The CCFA had been signed in December 2001.

A risk assessment had been disclosed in the Detailed Assessment proceedings and was dated 17th February 2003. At Detailed Assessment a further risk assessment was produced dated 14th May 2002. The Defendant submitted that the earlier risk assessment was not the risk assessment that should be relied upon and that the second risk assessment having been signed in February 2003 should only be allowed to operate in respect of profit costs incurred from that date.

The Defendant had admitted liability on 4th December 2002. The Defendant submitted that the success fee should be reduced to 10% from that date.

The decision

1. The earlier risk assessment was not evidenced by any entry in the Claimant’s solicitors file on or around 14th May stating that a risk assessment had taken place. Accordingly the risk assessment dated 17th February was the one on which she would base her decision.

2. Accordingly the Defendants submissions would be accepted and the success fee would be allowed only from the 17th February 2003.

3. Moreover, since by that date there was neither issue as to liability nor causation the success fee would be reduced to 10%.

The Claimant’s costs were therefore reduced from £6,577.08 to £2,914.69. This figure was lower than a Part 47 Offer and accordingly an Order was made for Defendant’s costs.


For further information please contact John Allen at lcjdallen943@aol.com or Marie Macfarlane at mariemacfarlane@veitchpenny.co.uk.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up