Private and Cookie PolicyWe use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. We will take your continued use of our website as consent to our use of cookies.



Legal 500 Awards

case studies banner

CFA Case Studies

Inheritance Act Application

Mr R and Ms T were an unmarried couple. They lived together for several years. Sadly, Mr R died. He did not leave a will, but he did have a life assurance policy. He had not nominated Ms T (or anyone else) as the beneficiary, and as a result the policy terms required the proceeds to be paid to Mr R’s parents. In other words, although she was dependent on Mr R, Ms T stood to lose her entitlement to the policy proceeds. Without the money, she would not be able to stay in the home she had shared with Mr R.

Ms T made an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Act 1975 for a share of Mr R’s estate, including the policy. We acted for Ms T under a full CFA. The claim was settled following mediation between the parties. Ms T received over 50% of the policy value. Her legal costs were paid in full by the Defendants, so Ms T kept 100% of the settlement monies.

National Charity

Our client was a national charity. It bought a building to serve as its new head office, relying on a valuation provided by a major firm of surveyors. The surveyor negligently over-valued the property, and the charity suffered loss as a result of relying on the surveyors’ advice.

The charity could not afford to spend its funds on litigation and, as a responsible charity, felt unable to expose donated monies to the risks of litigation. We represented the charity under a full CFA, and so did the barrister who was instructed. The charity won its case. It did not have to pay anything at all towards its representation as the opponent was ordered to pay costs. The cost of an After-The-Event insurance policy was deferred to the end of the case, and (under the law as it then stood) the client was able to recover the premium from the surveyors.

Professional Negligence

We were instructed by XYZ Limited whose former solicitors had issued proceedings in respect of a complex contractual claim but had incorrectly calculated the applicable time limit for bringing that claim.  This meant the claim had been discontinued with a resulting costs liability to the opponent and the loss of XYZ Limited's abilility to recover damages.

We introduced XYZ Limited to a litigation funder who was able to fund the costs of issuing proceedings for professional negligence against the former solicitors as well as Counsel's and expert's fees.

This meant that working capital which would otherwise have had to have been committed to fund disbursements could be used for the client's business.  We acted on a discounted CFA basis, so we were paid at a reduced rate as the claim proceeded.

XYZ Limited received substantial damages following the settlement of the claim from which were paid the funder's costs and disbursements as well as our fees, including a success fee.

Unfair prejudice proceedings

Mr A was a minority shareholder of a company.  The majority shareholders voted to change the Articles of Association so that he was forced to sell his shares at a reduced price.  He consulted us about bringing unfair prejudice proceedings.

We introduced Mr A to an ATE insurer, who provided a policy to cover the risk of Mr A having to pay the other side's costs in the event that the claim was not successful.  Mr A chose a policy which had a deferred premium, meaning it did not have to be paid until after the case had concluded.  The premium was only payable in the event of a successful conclusion (so he could pay it out of his damages). The premium increased in stages throughout the proceedings.

We represented Mr A on a full CFA, which meant that we did not receive any payment until after the case ended.

The claim was settled after the disclosure of documents stage, meaning it did not go all the way to trial.  Mr A recovered a seven figure sum, from which he paid the ATE premium and our costs and success fee, and kept approximately 70% of the settlement sum for himself.*

*In other cases, a higher or lower percentage recovery may be made.

Please note this information is provided by way of example and may not be complete and is certainly not intended to constitute legal advice. You should take bespoke advice for your circumstances.

Please note this information is provided by way of example and may not be complete and is certainly not intended to constitute legal advice. You should take bespoke advice for your circumstances.

Scroll To Top
Get in Touch