header-logo header-logo

Clarity on trial advocacy fee

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

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

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

Muckle LLP—Phoebe Gogarty

North East firm welcomes employment specialist

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Browne Jacobson—Colette Withey

Partner joins commercial and technology practice

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Ellisons—Lizzy Firmin

Chief operating officer joins equity partnership

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) has restated a fundamental truth, writes John Gould, chair of Russell-Cooke, in this week's NLJ: only authorised persons can conduct litigation. The decision sparked alarm, but Gould stresses it merely confirms the Legal Services Act 2007
The government’s decision to make the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) the Single Professional Services Supervisor marks a watershed in the UK’s fight against money laundering, says Rebecca Hughes of Corker Binning in this week's NLJ. The FCA will now oversee 60,000 firms across legal and accountancy sectors—a massive expansion of remit that raises questions over resources and readiness 
The High Court's decision in Parfitt v Jones [2025] EWHC 1552 (Ch) provided a striking reminder of the need to instruct the right expert in retrospective capacity assessments, says Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell in NLJ this week
Paige Coulter of Quinn Emanuel reports on the UK’s first statutory definition of SLAPPs under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Sophie Houghton of LexisPSL distils the key lesson from recent costs cases: if you want to exceed guideline hourly rates (GHR), you must prove why
back-to-top-scroll