Report comment

The underlying argument seems to be that all infant cases will be won. However, many cases are started and not won. This impacts the setting of a success fee. It is naive of a judge to look at matters so simply. As some examples of what could go wrong, consider that the child was said to be injured, but the medical expert says not. The Defendant denies liability causing a conflict between driver and passenger that is unmeritorious, but necessitates retainers being ended with no new LF to replace the driver and the case is dropped. Specious allegations of contributory negligence are run against the LF, who ceases to co-operate. The LF simply ceases to co-operate for whatever reason. The child attends the hearing for the approval and suddenly wants to describe new symptoms, despite prior interviews and signed statements saying that they were fully recovered. The child and LF simply do not turn up to a hearing and costs are awarded to the defendant. These risks all affect how a success fee is built up in even an allegedly simple case. As Judges only see the cases that were won with supporting medical evidence, admissions and co-operative clients, they naturally assume that this is standard fare, rather than a good example only. It is a view on par with the senior judge questioning why Multi Track costs budgets were a subject of argument. In the real world, there is a scrap for survival going on. If the judges wish to order a Detailed Assessment before allowing the SF, they should do so. Too often it is refused outright. We have appeals pending before the DCJ in our area. We are given to understand we shall find him unsympathetic. If so, the matter will have to be taken further.