Tag: Funding

High Court gives guidance on delegation and recovery of costs

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

In Rushbrooke UK Ltd -v- 4 Designs Concept Ltd [2022] EWHC 1416 (Ch) the Court gave guidance in relation to the principle of delegation when considering the reasonableness of costs. Where there has been insufficient delegation, it is likely the court will find costs are unreasonable. The key findings are at paragraph 14.

The Judgment

The starting point is that solicitors should delegate work:

I am unhappy with the notion that everything here has been done by a single Grade A fee-earner. One of the important skills of a solicitor is to know how to delegate.

Drawing on his 30 years’ experience in practice HHJ Paul Matthews went on to say:

In my experience as a commercial litigation solicitor, there were no cases in which no work could have been delegated.

In his judgment, whether or not there was a junior fee earner to delegate the was not relevant:

Sometimes it is said that, well, there was no one else to delegate to… the answer to that plea is of course that, as between himself and his solicitor the client is quite entitled to insist on a grade A fee earner doing everything. On the other hand, they are not entitled to require the opponent to pay for it. The question is whether the costs are reasonably incurred and reasonable in amount. Reasonableness takes into account of potential delegation.

In relation to the burden of proof the judge held:

It is not for the paying party to have to identify work which could have been done by a more junior fee earner.

Summary

Delegation should be the rule not the exception. The receiving party will have to justify a decision not to delegate. The test of whether an item could have been delegated is objective; if it was suitable for delegation then it should be allowed at a lower rate even if there was no fee earner to delegate to.

Should you have any questions, you can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Client not bound to consider solicitor’s interests under a CFA when settling – Candey -v- Bosheh

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

In Candey Limited -v- Bosheh & Salfiti [2022] EWCA Civ 1103 the Court of Appeal held that a client is not bound to consider their solicitor’s interests when settling a claim.

Background

In summary, Bosheh (the client, “C”) entered into a CFA with Candey Limited (the solicitor, “Sol”). The relevant term of the CFA was “…if… we obtain an order or agreement that our hourly rate costs… be paid by your opponent then we shall be entitled to recover those costs from your opponent, and you are always liable to pay these costs to us to the extent that we recover them from your Opponent. You will always seek to recover costs by order or agreement”. During the course of the primary litigation Sol received an offer from their opponent by which C would receive up to £1m, and that neither party would pay the other’s costs.

Sol advised C that any money paid to C under the terms of that settlement would go to Sol in payment of its legal fees. C did not accept that this was a correct interpretation of the CFA terms. The claim was ultimately settled on a drop hands basis.

Following settlement, Sol terminated its retainer with C and commenced proceedings alleging inter alia breach of its duty of good faith in failing to seek a settlement on terms that Sol would be paid.

Judgment

Finding for C, the High Court found that a retainer between a solicitor and client is not subject to a duty of good faith (para 84). This finding was upheld by the Court of Appeal which added “There is no authority that supports the proposition that, when retaining a solicitor to act for him or her, the client owed that solicitor a duty of good faith. The absence of authority is perhaps unsurprising: it is a startling concept. Many would say that, if a duty of good faith was applicable at all, it would arise the other way round and be owed by the solicitor to the client” The Court continued at paragraphs 53 – 54 that:–

  1. First, Mr Bompas’ answers demonstrate the potential conflict of interest that can arise under a CFA between the client and the solicitor where the terms are drafted in such a way that the solicitor’s costs recovery is itself dependent on the client recovering something – anything – from the proceedings… Such conflicts cannot be resolved by an implied duty owed by the client to consider the solicitor’s financial interests rather than his own; it is for the solicitor to ensure that such conflicts do not arise in the first place.
  1. Secondly, it is self-evident that, irrespective of any duty of good faith, the client cannot be in breach because he or she chooses a settlement which they perceive to be as good as or better for them than the one that obviously suits the solicitor. Any other conclusion would fundamentally alter the solicitor/client relationship. In the present case, the Boshehs were quite entitled to conclude that a ‘drop hands’ settlement was certainly not a substantially less advantageous (and arguably a better) deal than the earlier proposal made by the Sheikh.”

Summary

The judgment highlights the risks to solicitors acting under a CFA. Solicitors should check their client retainers to ensure that they minimise the risk that a client may settle the proceedings on terms that prevent them being paid. Whilst it is difficult to imagine wording which would provide complete protection, a clause within the CFA to the effect that if the claim is settled on terms where there is no specific provision for costs, the solicitor will be entitled to be paid their costs capped at a percentage of the settlement sum agreed.

Should you have any questions, you can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Compulsory mediation could be extended to all claims in the County Court

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

Under current government proposals mediation will be compulsory in all claims allocated to the small claims track. However, it is also considering whether to extend that requirement to all claims in the County Court. You can consider the proposal and have your say via the Consultation Paper. 

The Proposals

The proposals seek to tackle low levels of uptake of mediation and drive a culture shift in attitudes to litigation. The paper makes it clear that there will be no requirement to settle. Furthermore, as the current small claims mediation service (SCMS) is court sponsored and therefore costs neutral to the parties, it will not be an “onerous” obligation.

In reality, costs of mediation will be passed on to all court users through court fees. It will only be costs neutral if it succeeds in reducing the number of cases going to trial. 

The Role of Mediation in Settlement

Statistics show that mediation has a high success rate (up to 86%). But we should be wary of the assumption that mandatory referral to mediation will reduce the number of cases going to court by a similar amount. About 96% of civil cases in England settled outside court. However, 1.2 million claims were issued in the Civil Courts in 2020 but in the same year there were only 16,500 mediations (1.38%). This means that at least 94.62% of all of all claims settle other than by mediation.

It is questionable what benefit mandatory mediation will bring to the vast majority of cases which would have settled anyway. Particularly if court fees increase to fund it. And in those cases where agreement is not possible mandatory mediation will simply be a box ticking exercise.

The Report gives the mandatory mediation scheme in Ontario, Canada as an example of how mandatory mediation can be successful. But a 2001 report showed that mandatory mediation resulted in “full settlement of 40% of cases earlier in the process”. Overall, around 98% of cases settle before trial in Ontario.

Summary

Mediation is a useful tool for parties who want to settle. Indeed, it can force parties to review the weaknesses of their case and make settlement more likely. However, making it mandatory it is unlikely to make a significant difference to the number of cases proceeding to trial and any benefits will probably be outweighed by the costs.

You can have your say by visiting the Consultation, which closes on 4 October 2022.

Should you have any questions, you can contact the team at civilandcommercialcosts@clarionsolicitors.com.

Will 2021 be the year for Damages Based Agreements (DBA)?

Andrew McAulayLeave a comment

The case of Zuberi v Lexlaw Ltd provides much needed clarity in respect of the termination of a DBA by a client.

Background

  • Lexlaw Limited acted for Miss Zuberi in a financial mis-selling claim against her bank.  
  • The claim was funded by way of a Damages Based Agreement, entered into in 2014.
  • Lexlaw Limited helped to obtain a settlement for Miss Zuberi of over £1 million.
  • Miss Zuberi terminated the DBA and argued that no fees were due to Lexlaw Limited because the DBA was unenforceable. This was on the basis that the agreement contained a termination payment clause which was not allowed under the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013.

Costs Litigation

  • Lexlaw Limited issued Proceedings for the recovery of their unpaid fees.
  • In July 2020, HHJ Parfitt ruled in favour of Lexlaw Limited i.e. the termination provision in the DBA did not render the agreement unenforceable.
  • Miss Zuberi appealed and, on 15 January 2021, the Court of Appeal handed down its Judgment and confirmed the decision of HHJ Parfitt: The inclusion of a termination clause is permissible and does not render a DBA unenforceable.

2021 and beyond

The decision is sensible and will help to encourage litigators, particularly commercial litigators, to use a DBA as a source of funding. LJ Jackson introduced DBAs in order to improve access to justice, but they have been rarely used due to the concerns around termination. The Court of Appeal decision will certainly make DBAs more attractive to litigators.

What would really make DBAs attractive to litigators, and again, commercial litigators, would be hybrid DBAs i.e. the ability to charge an hourly rate whether the case is won or lost and a percentage charge if the case is won – similar to a discounted Conditional Fee Agreement. Lord Justice Lewison was supportive of this in the Judgment, but Lord Justice Newey was not. Many legal experts and commentators think that the Court of Appeal’s decision has opened the door for Hybrid DBAs, however, there is no clear authority on that point and the writer suspects that this point will make its way to the Court of Appeal.

So, will 2021 be the year for DBAs? The writer thinks that there will be a growth in the use of this funding option due to the Court of Appeal’s decision on termination clauses. The writer also thinks DBAs will increase as law firms will test the waters and engage with clients under hybrid arrangements. So, the writer’s answer to the question is Yes BUT law firms should proceed with caution as the “Door has been partly opened, but the stairs are slippery” which is what Dominic Regan (adviser to the Costs and Litigation Funding team) recently stated to the writer during a discussion about the case.


This blog was written by Andrew McAulay who is a Partner at Clarion and the Head of the Costs and Litigation Funding team. Andrew can be contacted on 07764501252 or at andrew.mcaulay@clarionsolicitors.com  

THIRD PARTY FUNDING – A VIABLE OPTION FOR 21ST CENTURY LITIGATION (Part 3)

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

This series of blog articles will address the increasing viability of third party funding as an alternative to traditional litigation funding methods. It will look at how the law has developed historically and how the Court now approaches third party funding and the potential liability of third party funders.

The third part of this series will explore the liability of third party funders in the matter of Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd (Nos 2 and 3) [2005] 1 WLR 3055.

Background

This matter related to an unsuccessful action in respect of anti-competitive practices which resulted in the collapse of the Claimant’s company, and which severely affected his finances. The Claimant entered into an agreement with a professional litigation funding company (MPC) to provide funding for the expert evidence and litigation support services for the expert. MPC did not agree to pay any of the Defendants’ costs or to provide finances for an ATE premium due to the significant amount of the premiums available.

The claim was unsuccessful at Trial and the Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendants’ costs. The Defendants’ then sought a non-party cost order against MPC for the entirety of the Defendants’ entitlement to costs. However, this was refused at first instance.

The Defendants subsequently appealed the decision.

Decision

The Court of Appeal considered the balance that needed to be struck between the access to justice provided by third party funding and the general rule that costs should follow the event. It was considered that a funder who purchased a stake in an action should then be protected from all liability of the opposing party’s costs in the event the claim fails.

The Court of Appeal commended the following approach:

‘a professional funder, who finances part of a Claimant’s costs of litigation, should be potentially liable for the costs of the opposing party to the extent of the funding provided’

This has become known as the Arkin cap. This approach has provided clarity and transparency to funders as they can now quantify their liability should the matter fail.

Whilst the cap has been readily adopted by the funding industry, it has also not been without criticism. The main criticism being that the cap creates an uneven playing field in favour of the third party funder as they will only ever be liable for the amount of their investment, whilst the opposing party would be liable for all of the costs of the funded party.

In the next part of the series…

The next blog in this series will take a look at the recent decision which has built upon the ‘Arkin cap’ in the matter of Davey v Money [2019] EWHC 997 (Ch).


This blog was prepared by Kris Kilsby who is an Associate Costs Lawyer at Clarion and part of the Costs Litigation Funding Team.  Kris can be contacted at kris.kilsby@clarionsolicitors.com or on 0113 227 3628.

THIRD PARTY FUNDING – A VIABLE OPTION FOR 21ST CENTURY LITIGATION (Part 2)

Joanne ChaseLeave a comment

This series of blog articles will address the increasing viability of third party funding as an alternative to traditional litigation funding methods. It will look at how the law has developed historically and how the Court now approaches third party funding and the potential liability of third party funders.

The second part of this series will explore the Court’s first acceptance of third party funding in the matter of Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions No.8 [2002].

Background

This matter related to a challenge brought by Spanish fisherman who sought to claim damages against the Secretary of State for the unlawful prohibition of fishing in UK territorial waters. A firm of accountants agreed with the Claimants to prepare and submit claims for loss or damage as a result of any losses suffered. The Accountants agreed to act in return for 8% of any damages recovered.

The Claimant’s succeeded in their challenge and were awarded damages and costs. On a preliminary issue the agreement was held to be not champertous and could be enforced against the Secretary of State.

The Defendant’s Challenge

The Defendant claimed that such an agreement was champertous and unlawful. It was argued that for an expert to act on a contingency fee basis would give the expert a significant financial interest in the case which is highly undesirable.

Decision

As stated in my previous blog, the tort of champerty had been abolished and the starting point for considering any arrangement was that it would be presumed enforceable unless there was a valid reason as a matter of public policy.

The Accountants had not acted as experts directly in this matter but had instead funded independent experts. Furthermore, by the time that they were instructed the issue of liability had already been decided.

Therefore, the Court held that such an agreement was not in the circumstances champertous or against public policy.

In the next part of the series…

The next blog will take a look at the liability of third party funders in litigation in the matter of Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd (nos 2 and 3) [2005] 1 WLR 3055.


This blog was prepared by Kris Kilsby who is an Associate Costs Lawyer at Clarion and part of the Costs Litigation Funding Team.  Kris can be contacted at kris.kilsby@clarionsolicitors.com or on 0113 227 3628.

THIRD PARTY FUNDING – A VIABLE OPTION FOR 21st CENTURY LITIGATION (Part 1)

Joanne Chase1 Comment

This series of blog articles will address the increasing viability of third party funding as an alternative to traditional litigation funding methods. It will look at how the law has developed historically and how the Court now approaches third party funding and the potential liability of third party funders.

The first part of this series will explore how the Court’s attitude to third party funding has changed significantly from the 19th through to the 21st Century.

Champerty and Maintenance

The historic position taken by the Court in respect of third party funding was that it was illegal and tortious. Two offences had developed through the common law: champerty and maintenance.

Champerty referred to when a person who did not have a legal interest in the matter provided financial assistance to litigation in order to receive a share of the profits.

Maintenance was the procurement of direct or indirect financial assistance from another in order to carry on, or defend, proceedings without lawful justification (British Cash & Parcel Conveyors v Lamson Store Service Co [1908]).

Therefore, the default position was that such agreements, which would be considered third party funding arrangements today, would be considered illegal, tortious and unenforceable. However, even at the turn of the 20th Century, the courts were willing to find such arrangements enforceable as a matter of public policy. For instance, in insolvency proceedings, which by their very nature meant that one party would need financial assistance in order to carry on or defend proceedings (Seear v Lawson (1880)), the Court found that a third party funding agreement was enforceable.

Abolition

The default position changed with the enactment of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (CLA 1967). S.13 CLA 1967 abolished the offences and torts of champerty and maintenance. S.14 CLA 1967 changed the approach of the test, which now started from the presumption that such agreements were enforceable, unless there was a valid reason as a matter of public policy.

Comment

Statutory intervention was important to provide additional certainty and security to parties wishing to enter into third party funding arrangements. However, such an approach cannot be taken for granted outside of the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Ireland, in the matter of Persona Digital Telephony Ltd v The Minister for Public Enterprise (2017), found a third party funding agreement to be unlawful. This is because the offences of Champerty and Maintenance have not been abolished by statute In Ireland. The Court felt that it is consequentially bound to find such agreements unlawful and that any change of approach was within the remit of the Legislator, not the Judiciary.

In the next part of the series…

The next blog will take a look at how the Court has begun to develop the law in respect of third party funding, with a look at the decision in Factortame Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions No.8 [2002].

This blog was prepared by Kris Kilsby who is an Associate Costs Lawyer at Clarion and part of the Costs Litigation Funding Team.  Kris can be contacted at kris.kilsby@clarionsolicitors.com or on 0113 227 3628.

Costs and Litigation Funding Update Seminar

Stephanie KayeLeave a comment

Clarion are holding a Costs and Litigation Funding Update Seminar on Thursday 22 October 2015. The seminar will provide a valuable update on a broad range of topics relating to legal costs and litigation funding. Clarion will provide up-to-date and useful guidance on case law post Jackson, cost budgeting and WIP due-diligence.

For more information, please click the link below:

http://www.clarionsolicitors.com/who-we-are/events/costs-and-litigation-funding-update