This site uses cookies.

Herbert v HH Law [2019] EWCA Civ 527] - Qamar Anwar, First4Lawyers

31/05/19. A recent Court of Appeal decision has left PI lawyers in no doubt about what they need to do before setting successes fees, but leaves a bad taste in the mouth, writes Qamar Anwar, managing director of First4Lawyers.

In Herbert v HH Law [2019] EWCA Civ 527, the Court of Appeal ruled that solicitors handling low-value personal injury claims since LASPO should have undertaken individual risk assessments before setting success fees – rather than just applying 100% across the board. Unfortunately, it is another appeal court decision that fails to recognise the reality of modern legal practice.

Claimant Nicky Herbert was advised by her Liverpool solicitors HH Law (better known as Hampson Hughes) to accept an offer of £3,400 for a rear-end shunt by a bus, of which £829 would be deducted as the firm’s success fee (25% of damages) and £349 for ATE insurance, leaving her to bank £2,222.

She accepted the offer but subsequently instructed JG Solicitors, which has become well known for its work challenging deductions from personal injury clients’ damages.

JG argued that HH had failed to conduct a risk assessment justifying the level of success fee and that the 100% uplift was out of step with the fixed success fee of 12.5% under the previous costs regime for RTA claims which settled before trial.

In its evidence, HH said that, like most of the market, it had changed its model as a result of LASPO to routinely charge a 100% success fee, capped at 25% of the damages.

The court at first instance reduced the success fee to 15%, finding no clear evidence the claimant had approved the cost to be incurred “with full knowledge”, and that there was no risk assessment on the file to justify the 100% success fee sought. This was upheld in the High Court.

Dismissing the appeal on this point, the Court of Appeal said the burden was on the solicitor to show there was informed approval of the success fee. The amount of a success fee is traditionally related to litigation risk, and HH had not told Ms Herbert that her success fee was not.

This ruling will worry a lot of firms – HH Law was right to say that the model of a standard 100% success fee capped at 25% of damages has been widely adopted since LASPO, irrespective of the individual risk of a case, and they are now at risk of an avalanche of challenges by former clients. Firms that did not change their procedures after the earlier rulings in this case should be doing so immediately.

It is a frustrating decision as well. The court expressly found that all the paperwork that HH gave Ms Herbert – the retainer, conditional fee agreement and a ‘What you need to know’ document – provided her with “a clear and comprehensive account of her exposure to the success fee and HH’s fees generally”.

Is that not informed enough consent? Would a client with no previous experience of the claims process expect the success fee to relate to risk? Ms Herbert had the information she needed to ask questions of the firm about it.

The model operated by HH and others was adopted out of necessity because of the LASPO reforms, which put a major squeeze on profitability. If anything it harks back to the whole ‘basket of cases’ theory that underpinned the extension of CFAs back in 1998.

The decision reflects a lack of understanding about the efficient, technology-led way that law firms handling high volumes of low-value litigation need to operate nowadays. In that respect, it is similar to another Court of Appeal ruling earlier this year on Bott & Co’s flight delay practice, which is heavily automated, especially in relation to uncontested claims.

With Ryanair adopting the practice of going around Bott and dealing with its clients directly, including paying them their damages, the court said the firm was not conducting litigation when the claims were not contested, and so did not have an equitable lien over the compensation. As a result, some clients did not pay on the fees that they should have done.

Speaking after the ruling, senior partner David Bott said he had hoped the court would recognise “the way the law was going” in terms of firms becoming more efficient using technology to process matters and said it had taken a lot of investment for claims to be handled in what the court described as a “mechanical and formulaic” way.

“If I’d had 100, 10-year-qualified solicitors with pens and paper instead, it would not have been a problem,” he observed.

It may well seem to claimant lawyers that efforts to provide a valuable service to consumers while generating a reasonable profit are stymied at every turn. Access to justice is not being well served.

Qamar Anwar is managing director of First4Lawyers

Image ©

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.