Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Senior Courts Costs Office) Decisions >> Smiths Dock Ltd v Edwards [2004] EWHC 90031 (Costs) (13 May 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Costs/2004/90031.html
Cite as: [2004] EWHC 90031 (Costs)
[New search] [Help]
This summary of a judgment has been obtained from the Supreme Court Costs Office pages on the HM Courts Service web site. The citation used by BAILII is not an officially approved citation. The full text of the judgment may have an official Neutral Citation issued by the court, and may be available elsewhere on BAILII.
No.14 of 2004
Smiths Dock Ltd v Edwards
13 May 2004
Mr Justice Crane (Sitting with Assessors)
Of the original four decisions of the Deputy Costs Judge which were challenged on this appeal, only one remained live, namely whether she had been right to allow an 87% success fee to the claimant on the facts of the case.
Peter Edwards had contracted mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos during his employment with the defendant, and died on 25 May 2000. He had been employed by Smiths Docks from 1948 until 1965, except for a period of two years between 1953 and 1955 when he was in the Merchant Navy. He had worked his way up from being an apprentice fitter to becoming a director of the appellant company. He began to experience chest symptoms in 1999, and the diagnosis of mesothelioma was made on 31 August 1999. The claim was first intimated by his solicitors on 7 September 1999, and a conditional fee agreement was entered into between the widow and her solicitors on 31 August 2000, proceedings being started nine months later on 20 March 2001. On 22 September 2002, shortly before trial, liability was admitted, and on 2 October 2002, the first day of the quantum trial, the widow was, by agreement, awarded £180,000 plus costs to be assessed if not agreed.
The Judge in upholding the decision of the Costs Judge to allow an 87% success fee rejected the argument of leading counsel for the widow that it was permissible to look at subsequent events in deciding whether the success fee percentage was appropriate. He held, upholding the Deputy Costs Judge, that it was. At the time of the CFA a number of issues were still very much live, notably contributory negligence, not guilty exposure and the possible exposure whilst in the Merchant Navy. In addition a payment of £165,000 had been rejected on the solicitors’ advice, and, taking all these factors into account, the Judge held that the Deputy Costs Judge had been justified in allowing the 87% successful fee, and accordingly dismissed the defendants’ appeal.