The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.8 of 2007

Lamont v Burton [2007] EWCA Civ 429

9 May 2007

May, Dyson and Smith LJJ

This appeal concerned the level of success fee to be allowed where a claimant (funded under a CFA) failed at trial to beat the sum paid into Court by the defendant.

On assessment of these costs up to the date of the payment in, D contended that the success fee should not be the fixed 100% provided for by CPR 45.16 in road traffic claims going to trial. He argued that 12.5% should apply, which would have been the fixed success fee under the rule had C accepted the money in court, as he should have done.

Upholding the District Judge, Dyson LJ said this:

“It is inherent in the scheme [under rule 45] that in some individual cases, the success fee will be unreasonably high and in others unreasonably low. But that is the price that has to be paid for achieving certainty and avoiding litigation over the amount of success fees. Rule 44 cannot be invoked to circumvent the careful structure of rule 45 and to undermine its objective of achieving certainty.”

Note

Mr Morgan QC appealed for the defendant/appellant and not the claimant/respondent as stated in the transcript.