case law Tankard v John Fredericks Plastics Ltd, Hibberd v Fawcett Old Ltd and Jones v Attrill [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 - 11th December 2008 The Court of Appeal considered the enforceability of Accident Line Protect CFA's. It was found that there was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(e) of the CFA Regulations 2000 in the Accident Line Protect Test Cases. For more information click here Noorani v Calver [2009] EWHC 592 (QB) - 25th March 2009 This case provides guidance as to the factors a court will take into account when decising whether to award costs to a party on an indemnity basis. Coulson J considered two important elements of the dispute, being, the parties' pre-trial conduct and the nature of the claim. For more information click here Roach and Matthews v Home Office [2009] EWHC 312 (QB) - 25th February 2009 Costs of full representation at inquest were recoverable as costs of the civil action. For more information click here Roche v Newbury Homes Limited [2009] EW Misc 3 EWCC - 10th February 2009 The court found that the pre action disclosure application was a separate cause of action from the substantive claim. It was held that the Claimant could not recover the costs of the PAD application as the CFA did not cover such an application. For more information click here Forde v Birmingham CC [2009] EWHC 12 (QB) - 29th January 2009 The court considered the issue of retrospective CFA's and retrospective success fees. The court ruled that retrospective CFAs and retrospective success fees are valid in law. In respect of the reasonableness and recoverability of a success fee on a retrospective CFA would be decided on assessment, in the usual way. At paragraphs 138-9 and 144-6 the Judge confirmed there was no requirement to notify the opponent of additional liabilities until the issue of proceedings and that additional liabilities will be recoverable up to the issue of proceedings, even if no notice is given prior to that date, because the rule only imposes a sanction for the period in which notice was required (i.e the issue of proceedings). For more information click here C v W [2008] EWCA 1459 - 19th December 2008 The court determined the approach of settling the success fee in circumsatnces where liability had been admitted. This case also deals with the way in which the Part 36 risks should be taken into account. The court allowed a 20% success fee. For more information click here Kilby v Gawith [2008] EWCA Civ 812 - 19th May 2008 The Court of Appeal considered whether a success fee of 12.5% under the fixed costs regime in CPR Part 45 II could be disallowed. The Defendant disputed the Claimant's entitlement to the success fee, on the basis that she already had BTE Insurance. The Court of Appeal held that irrespective of whether or not BTE was available, the Court did not have the power under CPR r45.11(1) to disallow or vary the fixed success fee as set out in the rule. The court also stated "the purpose of the new rules was to provide fixed levels of remuneration which might operate on a swings and roundabouts basis, which was regarded as fair taken as a whole". For more information click here Crane v Cannon's Leisure Centre [2007] EWCA Civ 1352 The Court of Appeal ruled that costs in respect of cost draftsmen should be claimed as a profit costs in which a solicitor will be entitled to apply a success fee (if applicable). This decision applies to cost draftsmens' fees undertaken in house as well as work which has been delegated to independent cost drafting companies. For more information click here Sitapuria v Khan - 10th December 2007, Liverpool County Court Fixed success fee of 12.5% applied even though damages were settled on the day of Trial. Judge Stewart QC stated "If the trial commences - by which, in any normal sense of the word, it would mean that the case has been called on and has at least begun to be opened as a contested hearing". As this did not happen in this case the recoverable success fee was 12.5%.