Report comment

It is all very simple. Anything that needlessly increases a costs bill to a defendant will be challenged. Switching from legal aid to a CFA and ATE unnecessarily results in a bill including a success fee and an ATE premium, neither of which were payable before.

The same principle exists if a person has before the event or union membership cover. take out a CFA with ATE and you don't get the success fee or ATE premium. This principle has been around since CFAs came into existence.

So, no IM don't get a success fee and ATE premium that they have only claimed to maximise costs - the judgment makes it clear the reasons given were not at all justifiable (ie IM are lying toe rags, though not all of them I'm sure).

On a professional negligence issue, if they've cost their client a 10% uplift then they have a professional negligence claim on their hands. Multiply that by all of the cases they switched over on and...

Personally I think it's an attempted fraud, and I say that as a claimant solicitor.