The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.8 of 2006

Jones v Caradon Catnic Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 1821; [2006] 3 Costs LR 427

8 December 2005

Brooke, Laws & Maurice Kay LJJ

The court considered whether a CFA which provided for a success fee of 120% was enforceable, notwithstanding that the claimant’s solicitors conceded by letter before the hearing of the detailed assessment that it should be limited to 100%.

At paragraph 35 Laws LJ said this:

“A statement of 120% success fee is a stark departure from the 100% maximum specified in paragraph 4 of the CFAs Order 2000 … its being disregarded, even if in the result it could be shown that no-one would be the loser, is inimical to the administration of justice and in this case is so for the reasons given by my Lord. If we were to treat this violation as marginal, we should, in my judgment, be acting flat against the grain of the legislators substantial policy objectives attained by Section 58(1) (Access to Justice Act 1990).”

Held – CFA unenforceable so no costs recoverable from the defendant by operation of the indemnity principle.