LegalDay - Legal News and Links
Legal Recruitment
Legal Forms

LegalCommentary
Analysis and Views from Legal Practitioners

Conditional Fees

Halloran v. Delaney - CFA - Conditional Fee Agreement

LegalDay Home Cases CurrentIssues LegalPractice Jobs News SiteMap Search LegalDay Search+


   

Contact    Privacy     Advertise     Use Our Content     Visitor List     Publish on LegalDay     Work for LegalDay

LegalCommentary   Resources

20 September 2002

This information is provided courtesy of Law-Now, CMS Cameron McKenna's free on-line information service.

www.law-now.com

Conditional Fees Update

Halloran v. Delaney

In the recent case of Halloran v Delaney (06/09/02) the Court
of Appeal reduced the success fee to just 5% in simple cases which
settle before proceedings begin. This might be seen as something
of a departure from the position the same Court took in
Callery v Grey, where it was suggested that 20% should be the
maximum success fee in such cases (see the Litigation Annual
Review 2002 at http://www.law-now.com/law-now/press.cfm?id=4258
for details and an explanation of what a success fee is).

In Halloran, the Court first confirmed that "costs only"
proceedings were part of the original 'claim', and were therefore
covered by the conditional fee arrangement and could attract a
success fee. The Court went on to say that it was 'now time to
re-appraise the appropriate level of success fee' that should be
recoverable on claims that are settled without the need for
court proceedings, and that Judges should now only agree to
an uplift (success fee) higher than 5% in such circumstances
where they are persuaded that it is appropriate in the particular
circumstances of the case. The court added that this policy
should be adopted in relation to all conditional fee arrangements
that have been, and are, entered into on and after 1 August 2001.

In a concluding paragraph at the end of the judgment, the Court
revived the two-stage idea suggested by Lord Woolf in
Callery v Grey (see above). He suggested that the uplift (success fee)
might (and again, it may well depend upon the particular facts) be
agreed at 100%, subject to a reduction to 5% should the claim settle
before the protocol period.

For more information please copy and paste/click on the following
link:
http://www.law-now.com/law-now/press.cfm?id=4783 or go
to the Law-Now section of our website (www.law-now.com) and
select "Your latest information". Alternatively please contact
Phillip Carnell at phillip.carnell@cmck.com or on
+44 (0)20 7367 2430.


=======================================
Disclaimer

CMS Cameron McKenna's principal office is Mitre House,
160 Aldersgate Street London EC1A 4DD. A list of the
partners' names and their qualifications is open for
inspection at that address. The partners are either
solicitors or registered foreign lawyers. We are regulated
by the Law Society.

This information has been prepared for subscribers to
Law-Now - CMS Cameron McKenna's free on-line information
service. The information and opinions expressed in all
Law-Now emails and our website www.law-now.com are not
necessarily comprehensive and do not purport to give
professional advice.

Further information about CMS Cameron McKenna can be found
on our website www.law-now.com
=======================================
Sponsored Links




Searches

Credit Rating

Legal Documents

At a Glance
Commercial
Company Formation
Employment
Internet
Landlord and Tenant

Divorce
Wills

Legal Books

Company and Commercial
Corporate Governance
Data Protection
Directories & Practice Basics
Disability
Enron
Employment
Family
Finance
Health and Safety
Human Rights
Immigration & Asylum
Intellectual Property
Libel, Defamation, Slander
Money Laundering
Probate, Wills, Equity, Trusts
Property
Reference
Students
Taxation

 

 

Related Pages

Contingency Fee Agreements

 

 

 

© Day x Day Media Ltd 2004/04