header-logo header-logo

12 May 2016
Issue: 7698 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Clarity on trial advocacy fee

Justice served if trial-ready advocates not penalised

A solicitor is entitled to a fixed trial advocacy fee even where the case settles on the day of trial, the High Court has confirmed.

Mr Justice Coulson held that the county court had been wrong to refuse Armstrongs Solicitors their fee in a personal injury case where the parties settled before the final contested hearing commenced in Mendes v Hochtief (UK) Construction Lt d [2016] EWHC 976 (QB).

Delivering his judgment, Coulson J said: “Counsel twice asked the learned recorder for more time which he granted and in consequence the settlement occurred. I do not believe that it strains the language of the rule to conclude that this was a case where the claim was ‘disposed of at trial’, albeit by way of settlement rather than judgment.”

He accepted counsel’s argument that “there are sound policy reasons for concluding that the interests of justice would be better served if the advocate was not penalised financially for negotiating a settlement at the door of the court.

“Nor do I think that my interpretation leads to uncertainty; indeed, in my view, confusion is much more likely to arise on the alternative construction, with arguments—which might have arisen here—about precisely when the trial could be said to have commenced.”

David Wright, council member of the Association of Costs Lawyers, says: “The clear direction provided by Coulson J is welcome and will hopefully prevent further satellite litigation regarding the point at which the trial advocacy fee is payable.

“However, it is unlikely to see an end to the wider question of when a trial begins.”

Issue: 7698 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll