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?

Begum v Klarit, Court of Appeal, 15 February 2005

21 March 2005
The issues

Costs – Appropriate Level Of Success Fee In Case Of “Stone-Cold Certainty – Conditional Fee Agreement

The facts

The Appellant brought an appeal. That appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal In rejecting it the Court of Appeal noted that “anybody assessing in a careful and thoughtful manner the prospects of the appeal from the point of view from the Respondents would have been likely to appreciate……..that they were pretty close to a stone cold certainty of successfully resisting the appeal”. The Court of Appeal went on to make a summary assessment of Costs. The solicitors for the successful Respondent had entered into an agreement with Counsel whereby Counsel was entitled to a success fee of 100%. They had agreed with their own client a success fee of 70%.

The decision

Success fees at that level discredited and devalued the whole arrangements for Conditional Fee Agreements. There was only a small amount of risk in this litigation and that risk would have been provided for properly by a success fee of 15%. The Success fee of both Counsel and solicitors would be reduced to 15% accordingly and the Court of Appeal expressed the hope that this was the last occasion on which it would have to express itself so strongly about the level of success fees proffered for approval.

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