Legal Cost Specialists

Appropriate success fee where liability clear

Press release from well known personal injury solicitors commenting on holiday illness claim, where solicitors were acting for 276 clients, quoting their head of travel law:

“It is almost beyond belief that [the Defendant] has continued to deny liability for this terrible outbreak”.

Success fee claimed for this clearly clear-cut claim: 100%.

You couldn’t make it up.

11 thoughts on “Appropriate success fee where liability clear”

  1. Perhaps when the claim was taken on it was not clear cut? But as further evidence was obtained (after the CFA was entered into) it became clear cut?

  2. Surely what you say to the press to shame/pressure/persuade the other into settling is always going to be more bullish than what you actually think or have advised your client? I mean it is hardly likely that they are going to say “we’re on really dodgy ground with this case so we hope they make an offer soon because we’ll take anything!”

    Also, even the most cocksure of litigators may have some doubt and wonder whether the other side (and their lawyers) have an arguable and winnable case if they’re still defending after two years of denials/defence?

  3. Why would a Defendant choose to defence a case that is so clear cut. Clearly not clear cut and had the lawyers for the Claimant had to go to trial on all these cases would anyone have thought 100% success fee was too much. If after 2 years a Defendant is still denying liability the risk of having to go to a full trial must be considerable regardless of what is known now in hindsight.

  4. Northern Costs Muppet

    What if anything happened between press cutting and CFA being entered into. If its food poisoning, a report may have been received from HSE or Local Standard Expert to say the Defendant had not done anything wrong or caused the food poisoning. On first glance, its funny, but clearly something happened if it was still running 2 years down the line

  5. Most “travel law specialist” firms I know, are run or populated by ex- travel company fee earners. They know exactly the resorts where poor hygiene and facilities exist. They know the travel companies have no and cannot get any defence evidence.
    To prepare and maintain a risk assessment claiming 100% success fee is in the most part, unconscionable at best
    On the other hand, travel companies still denying the claims is just as unconscionable

  6. Reminds me of the literature Merseyside Councils used to produce, extolling how they “successfully defeated 95% it tripping claims”. They stopped when people started turning up at DA hearings with the literature, and claiming 100% success fees as they said they knew these claims would be fought and there was a real only 5% chance of succeeding

  7. just when did the Defendant settle the claims? is that not a key point? Or are you saying they are claiming a single stage SF of 100%?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top