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?

Kilby v Gawith, Court of Appeal, 19 May 2008

31 July 2008
The issues

Costs – fixed recoverable costs regime – whether Court has a discretion to order a Claimant, who has entered into a Conditional Fee Agreement, a fixed success fee of 12.5%.

The facts

The Claimant had before the event insurance. The Defendant argued that since the Claimant had BTE insurance it was unreasonable to order the Defendant to pay any part of a success fee under a CFA.

The Claimant had been injured in a road traffic accident on the 1st August 2004. Liability had been admitted. A CFA was entered into on the 16th August 2004 and the validity of the CFA was not in dispute. The claim was settled for £3,068.84 plus an agreement to pay the Claimant’s costs. It was agreed that this was a case to which Section 2 of Part 45 CPR agreed, ie the fixed recoverable costs regime. Costs were agreed in the sum of £1,718.18, except for 2 items which were disputed by the Defendant. The first was the success fee of £177.47 claimed under Rule 45.11, namely 12.5% of the fixed recoverable costs and secondly, £352.50 which was the amount claimed for the medical report. Costs only proceedings were brought by the Claimant. When the matter came before the District Judge, the amount claimed for the medical report was reduced to £250.00 and no appeal was made against that part of the decision. In respect of the success fee, the District Judge held that the recoverability and amount of the success fee were not discretionary and rejected to the Defendant’s argument. The matter was appealed to the Judge who dismissed the appeal. The Defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The decision

The language of Rule 45.11(1) had a natural meaning to the effect that the Claimant was entitled to recover a success fee. As to the amount, Rule 45.12(2) provided that it “shall be 12.5%”. It had been conceded for the Defendant, and correctly, that where a success fee was recovered, it had to be 12.5%, neither more nor less.

The only authorities of relevance were the cases of Nizam v Butt and Lamont v Burton. The authorities most nearly in point supported the decision of the Judge and not the submissions made on behalf of the Defendant.

Whilst the Court recognised the importance of BTE insurance, it was not persuaded that its importance or the general approach to it led to the conclusion that the Rules should be construed any differently.

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