Report comment

Please fill in the form to report an unsuitable comment. Please state which comment is of concern and why. It will be sent to our moderator for review.


This is getting pointless and we're going around in circles.

I rather suspect I have read and familiar with all the rules on CFAs to which you refer. And, unless I am missing something, none of them prescribe or restrict the hourly rates. Indeed the only references to rates at all are those in CPR 46.9 and Article 3 of The Solicitors’ (Non-Contentious Business) Remuneration Order 2009, and section 57 Solicitors Act 1974, all of which confirm that the rates are presumed reasonable if incurred with the express or implied approval of the client.

My only interest in this, and the reason I started commenting about 100 messages ago, concerned hourly rates. My view is that it is perfectly possible to have an hourly rate set at such a level that the actual base costs and any success fee exceed the inter partes recoverable costs to the extent that the deduction from damages can exceed the cap of 25% under the CFA regulations.

Mr Carlisle appears to take the view that an hourly rate can not be so set, but instead but relate to a figure set ten years ago which was intended to provide a guideline (not a benchmark or fixed sum) for assisting judges undertaking summary assessments of inter partes costs (not detailed assessment of solicitor and own client costs). That is the nub of it.

Your details