To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
11 thoughts on “Appropriate success fee where liability clear”
Staged success fee?
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?
Richard, CFA in this case entered into almost two full years after press release.
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?
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.
Simon. On that basis, I would expect the success fee to be reduced on assessment!
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
A well placed “continued”?
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
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
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%?