Common sense prevails – when enough is enough.
David Richardson & Ors -v- Slater & Gordon Uk Limited [2025] EWHC 1220 (SCCO) – 224 Claimants brought proceedings against Slater & Gordon (S&G) challenging the enforceability of their retainer and particularly their ability to make deductions from damages. 10 of those claims were heard as test cases by Senior Costs Judge Rowley.
The Court heard argument on nine key points, the main ones being whether the CFAs were in effect DBAs, whether the Claimants gave informed consent to make deductions, and did S&G comply with their obligation to inform the Claimants of their liabilities for costs.
During evidence, the Court established that S&G would conduct an ‘’onboarding’’ call in which the retainer documents were explained, and the documents would be emailed to the client often during this call. The client would be taken through the documents and asked if they had any questions before being invited to sign and return the retainer documents.
The retainer documents were found to largely be in the standard format and were a CFA not a DBA and therefore complied with Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.
Senior Costs Judge Rowley concluded that this was a ‘’perfectly appropriate method’’ for signing up clients. An oral explanation had been provided along with comprehensive written documents, largely in the standard (accepted) format. There was nothing to suggest further explanation was warranted or that there was any misrepresentation of the Claimant’s liability to pay costs or that any undue pressure to sign the retainer documents was applied.
The retainers were therefore enforceable, and the Claimants were liable for the deductions from damages set out therein.
With regards to the issues raised in respect of the success fee, the Court did find that these required further explanation, they could not simply be claimed at 100% regardless of the claim and these were reduced according to the liability risks (passenger claims coming down to 10%).
The use of a blended rate was perhaps unsurprisingly deemed to be unusual, and the Court substituted the Guideline Hourly rates.
This could therefore be considered a win for common sense in the upholding of the substance of an agreement the client had agreed to and signed, rather than attempts to subvert it on technical formalities.
It also makes clear that success fees should be assessed according to the risks at the time the CFA was entered, and blended or uniform rates require strong justification and a clear explanation to avoid challenge.
This provides a timely reminder that providing oral advice and keeping a clear record of the information provided can be beneficial. Particularly now more so than ever, as the Fixed Costs Regime expands and more Solicitors may be looking to recover shortfalls in their costs.
How can PIC assist?
If your former client is challenging costs deductions in the form of a success fee or even, as in these cases, attacking the basis of a retainer to which they had previously agreed, PIC are able to help advise upon and assist in defending such claims.
James Peters, Costs Lawyer
17.07.2025