BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (t/a Washington DC) (No.2) [2003] EWHC 9024 (Costs) (20 February 2003) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2003/9024.html Cite as: [2003] EWHC 9024 (Costs), [2003] 2 Costs LR 204 |
||
[New search] [Help]
No.4 of 2003
Designer Guild Ltd v Russell Williams (Textiles) Ltd (trading as Washington DC) (No.2)
20 February 2003
House of Lords, Mr Brendon Keith (Principal Judicial Clerk) and
Chief Master Hurst (Senior Costs Judge Sitting as a Judicial Taxing Officer
Following the decision of an Appellate Committee on appeal from the Judicial Office that CFAs do apply to proceedings before the House of Lords the question arose as to whether a 100% success fee as claimed by the successful party was reasonable. The Tribunal had little difficulty in concluding that it was, particularly bearing in mind an opinion of leading counsel prior to the CFA being entered into that the chances of success were no more than evens. The appellant company had been successful at first instance but had lost in the Court of Appeal, and it was said in that opinion that the issues were finely balanced. The Tribunal went so far as to say (possibly obiter):
"There is an argument for saying that in any case which reached trial a success fee of 100% is easily justified because both sides presumably believed that they had an arguable and winnable case. In this case we have no doubt at all that the matter was finely balanced and that the appropriate success fee is therefore 100%."
The Tribunal also drew attention to paragraph 11 .9 of the CPD which says that:
"a percentage increase will not be reduced simply on the ground that when added to base costs which are reasonable and … proportionate the total appears disproportionate."
Counsel also had a success fee in this case based on 50%, because they were guaranteed half their fees, and in those circumstances the Tribunal had little hesitation in holding that counsel would be entitled to 50% success fee on their fees.
