This site uses cookies.

Recovering and challenging additional liabilities - Andrew Roy, 12 King's Bench Walk

22/02/19. In NJL v PTE [2018] EWHC 3570 (QB) Martin Spencer J set out the proper method for quantifying the risks associated with Part 36 offers for the purposes of assessing success fees. This case demonstrates the importance of any claim for an additional liability being properly supported by evidence.


The Claimant was a car passenger who suffered catastrophic injuries on 14 May 2010. These rendered him a protected party. Liability was never in dispute. The claim settled slightly less than three months before trial for a £1,150,000 gross lump sum, £34,000 p.a. periodical payments and costs.

The Claimant’s solicitors entered into a CFA (CFA (1)) on 19 July 2010. Following a change of litigation friend they entered into a second CFA (CFA (2)) on 20 August 2012. These both provided for a 25% success fee if the claim settled more than 3 months before trial and 100% thereafter. The terms of the CFAs were conventional. “Success” was defined simply in terms of recovering any damages. If the Claimant rejected an effective offer to settle on advice, no fees were recoverable for the relevant period thereafter. CFA (2) was a “CFA lite”; any costs not recovered from the Defendant would be waived. The risk assessments in support of the CFAs were largely pro forma and did not set out any arithmetical basis for the success fees.

The effect of pre-April 2013 rules was that (a) the default position was that the success fee was fixed at 12.5%; (b) the Claimant could apply for higher figure; (c) if the Claimant established that the correct success fee was more than 20%, he would recover that higher figure; (d) if not the default of 12.5% applied.

The Claimant applied for success fees of 100%, although at the assessment hearing itself reduced figures of 67% were sought. District Judge Searl held that in respect of CFA (1) he was limited to 12.5%. However, she allowed 65% in respect of CFA (2). She did so by reference to the fact that between CFA (1) and CFA (2) further information about the Claimant’s history had come to light which made...

Image ©

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.