Proper compliance
Proper attendance on client: questions: answers: investigation: note
BTE. Defendant a plc: public company: transport. More often than not will have available BTE

Culshaw v Goodliffe 24.11.03 Liverpool County Court
Sarwar v Allam 2001 EWCA 1401
Hollins v Russell 2003 EWCA CIV 718
Richards v Davies SCCO PTH0504722
Garrett v Halton 2006 EWCA CIV 1017
Myatt v NCB 2006 EWCA CIV 1017

Bevan -v- Power Panels Electrical Systems Ltd 2007 EWHC 90073
Thomas -v- Butler and others t/a Worthington Solicitors 2009 EWHC 90153 (costs)
Tranter -v- Hansons (Wordsley) Ltd 2009 EWHC 90145 (costs)

Regulation 4 (2)(c) is a starting point for attack and defence in regard to the acceptability or otherwise and legality of a CFA insurance and success fee.

Non compliance with Practice Directions

Malcolm William Green V (1) -v- Sunset and Vine Productions Ltd and others (costs) 2009 EWHC 1610 (QB)

Minor Claimant and Non Contested Claim

Aurangzeb (by his litigation friend Mrs S Rahman) –v- Walker 2008 EWHC 90134 (costs). Case involving a minor which settled for £500. To avoid seeking the Courts approval of the settlement the Claimant’s mother signed a parental indemnity form agreeing to indemnify the insurer against any future claim in respect of the injuries. Dispute as to costs. Costs only proceedings issued in the County Court. The matter transferred to Master Rogers at the SCCO. Decision at District Judge level where considered and the decision of HHJ Stewart QC Coles -v- Keklik [2008] was persuasive (see Personal Injury Law Journal December 2009).

Stillwell -v- Clancy Docwra Plc [2009] EWHC 90148 (costs). This case flags up warnings as to the form of words and notification on settlement of a case both as to value and payment of costs. Issue of fixed costs (see CPR 26.6 and 27.1(4)(ii).

"Will the client succeed"? If the answer is "yes", even if there is likelihood of challenges (Contributory Negligence) then the success fee is modest and within case law parameters; even outside predictive fees.
Have you prepared a full, objective Risk Assessment
Variable success fees: case law and notification
100% on issued proceedings
Additional liabilities for notification and on detailed assessment procedure
CFA's after 01.03.04 12½% RTA
after 01.10.04 25½% non disease EPL Claim

Disease claims have a separate percentage

Butt v Nizami SCCO 05/380 and 383
Brennan v Associated Asphalt Ltd SCCO 0507905
Jenkins v Young Bros Transport 2006 EWHC 151 (QB)

Conditional Fee Agreements Regulation 2000

Careful to comply with Regulations 3 and 4

Sarwar v Alarm 2003 AII ER 162
Samonini v London General Transport SCCO 0405618 19.01.05

Patel -v- Admiral Insurance (substituted)

Kilby -v- Gawith"

These 2 cases were appealed from the Liverpool County Court and Birkenhead County Courts respectively. The appeal heard by Judge Stewart QC and dealt with the issue of success fee aware a BTE was available. Both cases were RTA's and dealt with CPR 45 10 and 45.11. The appeals continued to confirm the position of the ring fence around CPR 45 entitlement and writes of a success fee there under.

Have in mind that the Kilby decision is the subject of a further appeal