Report comment

Not entirely convinced that 'Herbert' will 'open the floodgates' for a significant new line of work for CMCs.

In relation to low value PI claims the sums in issue are likely to very small indeed. In 'Herbert' HH Law incurred profit costs of £5,754.80 but charged a success fee of just £829.21. Although the success fee was reduced on assessment from 100% to 15%, as the success fee was capped at 25% of damages, at £829.21, it was always far less than 100% of the base costs. In fact it was less than 15% of the base costs which would have come to £863.22.

HH Law was therefore in some ways a bit unlucky at the cost lottery. The causes of the outcome of HH's errors were perhaps threefold. Firstly, claiming an impossible to justify 100% success fee for what was a straightforward rear end shunt; Secondly, failing to appreciate that the 25% cap on deduction from damages would almost certainly be the limiting factor for the success fee, even if the success fee was fixed at a very low and (frankly) realistic percentage; and Thirdly, failing to render a bill based on the actual base costs incurred. If the invoice had detailed the base costs properly then the effect of the success fee being reduced to 15% should arguably have been that no refund would be due because by virtue of the 25% cap the success fee charged to Ms Herbert would have been less than 15% of the base costs. In those circumstances Ms Herbert's success would have been pyrrhic.

No doubt in light of 'Herbert' other PI firms will be more careful how they invoice their clients.

Given that 'Herbert' is a dispute over a success fee of £829.21 which was reduced to about £300 this is not exactly high value litigation so it is also difficult see how issues of proportionality will not render it uneconomic, unless a very high success fee is charged by those undertaking this type of costs work. Yes we can all see where that might lead......

Of course in high value PI claims where the 25% cap does not limit the success fee a reduction in the success fee at assessment could make a big difference to the client.

However, the other reason why these claims are likely to be limited in number is because of the time limits imposed S.70(3) & (4) of the Solicitors Act.