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?

Smiths Dock Limited v Edwards, High Court, 13 May 2004

27 May 2004
The issues

Costs – Conditional Fee Agreement – Success Fee – What Fee Appropriate in a Mesothelioma Case.

The facts

The action arose from the contracting of mesothelioma by Peter Edwards as a result of exposure to asbestos during his employment with Smiths Dock. He died on 25th May 2000. On 7th September 1999 he had instructed Irwin Mitchell to pursue a claim on his behalf. On 31st August 2000 a CFA was made between his widow and Irwin Mitchell and on 20th March 2001 proceedings were commenced.

On 22nd September 2002 shortly before Trial liability was admitted. On the first day of the Trial the Respondents were awarded by agreement £180,000.00 plus costs.

The CFA provided for a success fee of 87% if the Claimant should win. The matter came before Deputy Costs Judge on Detailed Assessment from whom the Defendant paying party appealed.

The decision

Four issues had arisen. The Defendant appealed from the decision to allow a 20% enhancement on the published rate for a Sheffield solicitor; the decision to allow care and conduct of 100%; the decision to allow a success fee of 87%; and the decision to allow a success fee on the preparation of the Bill of Costs.

The first issue had been settled between the parties and the Respondent had conceded the second and fourth issue leaving the only live issue as the success fee of 87%. This case was very different from the cases considered in Callery v Gray. It was important to note that at the time the CFA had been signed, Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services had not been decided at first instance. From the ready reckoner set out in “Cook on Costs” the success fee of 87% had been arrived at. There were at the time of the CFA several issues still alive – contributory negligence – prior health problems – issues relating to a low fibre count – and the issue of non-guilty exposure. The Defendant had argued the risks of recovering nothing were very slight and that in reality the live issues related to quantum and that quantum issues should not give rise to a high risk as reflected in a success fee.

Certainly at the date of the CFA it was possible to be very optimistic that some liability would be established but it was not certain and the risk was not negligible. In addition there were the quantum issues. Advising on quantum issues was not straightforward in such cases and whilst liability issues and quantum issues could usefully be considered separately in a case such as this, ultimately a single success fee had to be arrived at on an assessment of the prospect of “winning”. The decision of the Costs Judge in allowing the success fee of 87% could not be interfered with.

Appeal dismissed.

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