Report comment

I think you are right Dominic. Even Master James in the Hanley case said.

'I am concerned by several aspects of this case, for example the Defendant taking a sum equal to exactly 25% of the damages'

Which seems to miss the point that 25% is a cap not a limit. The 'real' success fee would probably have been 100% of base costs and a lot higher than 25%.

It seems to me rather odd that a success fee of 100% of costs (say £3,000) but which is limited to 25% of damages (say £500) could be criticized never mind taxed down, unless as you say, the best intentions but flawed DJ decisions in infant approval cases have muddied the waters.