Injury claim

[BazzaS]

Whilst we are unable to recommend any particular company, it is always advisable to look for a no win no fee based service or a service which charges the other side for its fees in the event of a successful claim.

 

If they don't charges the other side it's fees in the event of a success they are negligent!. However, it is rare to recover 100% of all costs (including disbursements) with a successful claim (and with no-win, no fee arrangements ; if you don't win there will still be disbursements, even if there isn't a "solicitors fee")

 

As others have said check insurance policies / union benefits to see if you already have (before the event / BTE) insurance.

 

If not consider after the event (ATE) insurance. This shouldn't be prohibitively expensive given

A) it only needs to pay out if you loose

B) it doesn't need to cover your solicitors fees (as "no win, no fee"), and

C) it doesn't need to cover the other side's costs as (unlike, say, contract law) for a personal injury claim there is Qualified One-way Costs Shifting (QOCS)

 

QOCS says you don't have to pay costs (as claimant) even if you lose as long as you have behaved reasonably (so not a fraudulent claim, & not breaching the court's directions).

 

A NWNF solicitor should cover these with you, discussing the NWNF agreement and its implications.

A CFA (where you pay a "success fee" out of any damages) is the most common arrangement. A DBA (damages based agreement) is less common (where they get an agreed percentage of any damages award)

 

Your solicitor should also discuss the costs implication if the other side make a Part 36 offer, but you wouldn't need to have that discussed until it happens!

[BazzaS]

TBH you should easily be able to do this without losing upto +30% to a NWNF fleecers.

 

he company MUST risk assess all activities any employees are asked to do.

 

it appears to me that this has not been done....

 

i'd simply ask them for copies of the the risk assessment reports for the required tasks his employment required him to undertake....

 

there wont be any I bet......

 

go ring HSE and tell them about this.

you do not need to employ anyone

neither should he need to meet any unreclaim able costs.

 

they'll try and settle outside of court

don't accept anything they offer

take them to court.

 

Note : I'm just going to use made up figures to illustrate 2 points......

Say the OP will win the court case and the damages are assessed at £10,000.

The OP's solicitors costs (to the end of trial)are £4,000, and the other side's costs are £5,000 (and they make a part 36 offer of either £10,500 or £9,500 before trial when those costs are at £2000).

These figures are made up, may be completely unrepresentative, so don't rely on them but they should serve to illustrate the point.....

 

re: "TBH you should easily be able to do this without losing upto +30% to a NWNF fleecers."

The maximum "success fee" allowable for a CFA is now 25% for a personal injury claim, and this is 25% of non-future losses (and 0% of any damages for future losses such as future physiotherapy).

 

So if all the damages in the figures I've made up were for past damages and the part 36 offer never gets made (or is made for £9,500 so gets "beaten").

 

The part 36 offer being made can be ignored regarding costs, as beaten. OP pays nothing towards defendants costs.

OP's solicitor gets their basic fee from the defendant.

OP had to pay £1,000 success fee (25% of £4000) which they pay out of the damages of £10,000

 

OP recovers £9000 of the £10,000 (the other £1k going on the success fee!).

 

Regarding "they'll try and settle outside of court

don't accept anything they offer

take them to court" : if they make a part 36 offer it MUST be considered carefully, not rejected out of hand as there are important costs implications. Why? Because you can win the case, but (almost!) loose the battle.

 

If the part 36 offer was for £9500 (as above); no costs consequences and the OP turns out to be justified in rejecting it.

 

but what if the part 36 offer had been for £10,500 and the OP (with hindsight!) should have taken it?

Damages of £10,000.

Success fee £1000. (Both as above).

But now, due to the failure to beat the part 36 offer, the OP wins the judgement but still has to pay the other side's costs incurred after the end of the "relevant period" of the part 36 offer.

With the made up figures I'm using this means costs of £3000 (the £5000 cost at end of trial less the £2000 the OP wouldn't have to pay as it was incurred before the part 36 offer was made!).

So the OP recovers £6.000 (10k less 1k success fee less 3k costs)

 

My point?. Don't reject a part 36 offer out of hand : it could mean that you could win the judgement but still recover much less.

 

QOCS still applies with part 36 offers, but there is still the success fee.

So, using the figures above (10k damages, 10,500 part 36 offer, 4,000 claimants solicitors costs, 25% success fee, £2000 defendants solicitors costs at time of part 36 offer) but we now have defendants solicitors costs at end of trial at a whopping £15,000 (probably unrealistic, but just to illustrate the point)!

 

Defendants costs incurred after the part 36 ; £13,000

This exceeds the damages of £10,000 so the claimant doesn't get any of this : it gets wiped out, as £13k is more than 10k

 

QOCS still applies, so at least the £3k left (13k minus 10k) doesn't have to be paid to the defendant (who "lost" the judgment 'battle' but "won" the part 36 'war') by the claimant, but the claimant still had to pay the success fee! (Since they "won" the judgement!)

 

End effect;

Claimant recovers nothing and is £1000 down (success fee)

Claimants solicitor gets £5000 fees (4000 standard and 1000 success)

Defendants solicitor gets £15000 fees

Defendant pays 19,000.

Damages? Eaten up by the cost implication of the non-beaten part 36 offer!

 

My point: rejecting a part 36 offer is still a potentially bad move but is much worse a move if the defendants costs (incurred after the part 36 offer) are likely to be sizeable compared with the damages ...... and if this is the case then "don't accept anything they offer

take them to court" becomes very risky advice!

[BazzaS]

If we did do the NWNF

what would be a reasonable percentage for them to take

as we are aware that they do take a percentage if we win.

 

Apologies, I missed answering this first time around.

 

In general, the percentage of the success fee of the CFA is supposed to reflect / reward the degree of risk the solicitor is taking on with the NWNF arrangement.

 

So with a case that they assess as "50/50", they can charge a 100% success fee.

 

Why 100%? To illustrate I'll use made up numbers again!) : If their fee is £1000, and they took 10 cases with individuals paying themselves they'd get total fees of 10,000.

If these were on NWNF they'd expect to lose 1/2 (as they are 50/50), so win 5 cases. So for each case, to give them their £10,000 total fees for the same amount of work, each case is £2000, as £1000 from the defendant, and 1000 success fee.

 

 

80/20 case?. They win 8. 10,000 total, so each is worth £1,250.

Still £1000 from the defendant, so 250 success fee (25%)

 

90/10 case. Win 9. 10,000 so each is worth £1,111.

Still £1000 from defendant, £111 success fee (11.1%)

 

This is the theoretical basis for the starting point : and it has its flaws.

In theory, if you have a cast iron case, you'll always win, the NWNF firm is taking no risk so should get a 0% success fee (though they'll argue there is no such thing as a "certain" case!, in order to justify a success fee even with a cast iron case : they could help you win the judgement but never be able to enforce it .... So there is always some risk)

 

As I've previously mentioned, the success fee for personal injury cases is capped at 25% (so they may be wary of taking on a case they assess at less than 80% chance of success!)

 

Within the SRA's code of conduct solicitors must meet the principles, and outcomes, and one such outcome is O1.6

you only enter into fee agreements with your clients that are legal, and which you consider are suitable for the client's needs and take account of the client's best interests;

 

There are also "indicative behaviours". They don't HAVE to meet IB's (for the positive or "it is best to:" ones)

And for the negative or "it is best not to" ones it isn't forbidden to do the action : but complying with the indicative behaviours is advised - if only to show that the outcomes and principles (which ARE mandatory!) are being met.

 

IB1.17 notes

where you are acting for a client under a fee arrangement governed by statute, such as a conditional fee agreement, giving the client all relevant information relating to that arrangement;

 

They won't be able to advise on the relative strength of your case until they have the details and have done a case analysis (including if the employer was insured: as that makes recovering any judgement sum from a successful case more likely as the insurers will fork out even if the firm goes bust!).

 

Once they have an idea of the strength of the case they can advise on the success fee. If they tell you you have a really strong case, against an insured business, and then say ; "we want a 25% success fee" : ask them if they are treating you fairly and in your best interests .....

[BazzaS]

Have had advice from a couple of NWNF companies and have also received quite a few documents/agreements which we are waiting to sign, just deciding on the best one.

 

 

The only hiccup we have is that because we don't have legal insurance they are wanting us to take out an legal expenses insurance policy which so far (from 2 companies) is 35% and 37.5% along with the 25% success fee.

 

 

The companies so far who have sent agreedments are [removed] and [removed].

 

 

[removed] seem the ones to go with, legal insurance is 35% and they have stated 25% success fee in their agreement.

 

 

[removed] does not mention a success fee.

 

 

[removed] we got via National Accident Helpline who they pay a marketting fee to which they have stated in their agreement.

 

Does the above sound like the norm being we pay legal insurance fee as well as success fee.

Just asking as it does take out a big chunk of the settlement.

 

Following on from gp appointment my hubby has to have ultra sounds done of his arm and will also need physio to learn now to cope with the injury.

 

He is a spray painter and had to leave the job where he injured himself to take on lighter duties as he was not able to lift the trolley with all the wheels into the spray booth despite telling them he could not as he had hurt his right arm.

 

Also his new job is commission based but he will not be able to make target as he has to repeatedly stop to rest his right arm when he is spraying

therefore if there are 5 jobs he needs to do to hit bonus he is only manage between two or three.

 

 

Would that be regarded as loss of earnings.

 

Also cosmetically he is quite conscious of it as it looks horrid, where the muscle joins onto where your elbow is is now completely flat and he just has this big bulge at the top of his arm.

Its very creepy looking!!!

 

We are waiting for papers from Slater Gordon, so I know you cannot recommend anyone

but do any of the 3 I have mentioned got bad ratings, are you able to advise on that.

 

Again thanks for all the advice has most definitely helped us.

 

Sharon

 

Hold fire on signing for sure!.

 

The legal expenses insurance should be for a fixed premium, not a percentage of the damages!.

That percentage might be 'staged' (that is a certain amount now, a certain amount at exchange of experts' reports, a certain amount if it is going to trial), but "a percentage of the damages" sounds wrong.

 

Also, have you asked just what you are getting covered for your 35%/37.5% ??

 

See my post number #4

If not consider after the event (ATE) insurance. This shouldn't be prohibitively expensive given

A) it only needs to pay out if you loose

B) it doesn't need to cover your solicitors fees (as "no win, no fee"), and

C) it doesn't need to cover the other side's costs as (unlike, say, contract law) for a personal injury claim there is Qualified One-way Costs Shifting (QOCS)

 

The insurance premium should take into account the strength of your claim, so if you have a strong claim, should be less.

The premium shouldn't be to cover your solicitors fees : that is why they allowed to charge a success fee!.

The premium shouldn't be to cover the other sides costs .... (see #4 for further info on QOCS).

 

So, what are you getting for your 35%?

 

a) cover for your expert's fees and disbursements (if you loose)??

b) Cover for if it goes to trial, they make a part 36 offer, which you then don't beat?? (Which is a situation where you may become liable for their costs, so most insurers will insist on being made aware of any Part 36 offers, and might reserve a right to withdraw cover if you don't accept a reasonable part 36 offer .....)

 

They should be basing the premium on providing cover for a) and b). If they are basing it on adding cover for anything else - ask why you are paying it!.

 

Is the insurance through the NWNF solicitors?. Do the solicitors mandate who you have to have the insurance with??

(Mind you, it is usually the other way around, you buy the ATE insurance and the insurers mandate which solicitors you have to start the process with........)

[BazzaS]

Ask them in what circumstances you'd have to pay the other side's costs.........

 

(They are very limited : fraudulent claims and

Or refusing a part 36 offer, and then not beating it).

[BazzaS]

Note : I'm just going to use made up figures to illustrate 2 points......

Say the OP will win the court case and the damages are assessed at £10,000.

The OP's solicitors costs (to the end of trial)are £4,000, and the other side's costs are £5,000 (and they make a part 36 offer of either £10,500 or £9,500 before trial when those costs are at £2000).

These figures are made up, may be completely unrepresentative, so don't rely on them but they should serve to illustrate the point.....

 

re: "TBH you should easily be able to do this without losing upto +30% to a NWNF fleecers."

The maximum "success fee" allowable for a CFA is now 25% for a personal injury claim, and this is 25% of non-future losses (and 0% of any damages for future losses such as future physiotherapy).

 

So if all the damages in the figures I've made up were for past damages and the part 36 offer never gets made (or is made for £9,500 so gets "beaten").

 

The part 36 offer being made can be ignored regarding costs, as beaten. OP pays nothing towards defendants costs.

OP's solicitor gets their basic fee from the defendant.

OP had to pay £1,000 success fee (25% of £4000) which they pay out of the damages of £10,000

 

OP recovers £9000 of the £10,000 (the other £1k going on the success fee!).

 

Regarding "they'll try and settle outside of court

don't accept anything they offer

take them to court" : if they make a part 36 offer it MUST be considered carefully, not rejected out of hand as there are important costs implications. Why? Because you can win the case, but (almost!) loose the battle.

 

If the part 36 offer was for £9500 (as above); no costs consequences and the OP turns out to be justified in rejecting it.

 

but what if the part 36 offer had been for £10,500 and the OP (with hindsight!) should have taken it?

Damages of £10,000.

Success fee £1000. (Both as above).

But now, due to the failure to beat the part 36 offer, the OP wins the judgement but still has to pay the other side's costs incurred after the end of the "relevant period" of the part 36 offer.

With the made up figures I'm using this means costs of £3000 (the £5000 cost at end of trial less the £2000 the OP wouldn't have to pay as it was incurred before the part 36 offer was made!).

So the OP recovers £6.000 (10k less 1k success fee less 3k costs)

 

My point?. Don't reject a part 36 offer out of hand : it could mean that you could win the judgement but still recover much less.

 

QOCS still applies with part 36 offers, but there is still the success fee.

So, using the figures above (10k damages, 10,500 part 36 offer, 4,000 claimants solicitors costs, 25% success fee, £2000 defendants solicitors costs at time of part 36 offer) but we now have defendants solicitors costs at end of trial at a whopping £15,000 (probably unrealistic, but just to illustrate the point)!

 

Defendants costs incurred after the part 36 ; £13,000

This exceeds the damages of £10,000 so the claimant doesn't get any of this : it gets wiped out, as £13k is more than 10k

 

QOCS still applies, so at least the £3k left (13k minus 10k) doesn't have to be paid to the defendant (who "lost" the judgment 'battle' but "won" the part 36 'war') by the claimant, but the claimant still had to pay the success fee! (Since they "won" the judgement!)

 

End effect;

Claimant recovers nothing and is £1000 down (success fee)

Claimants solicitor gets £5000 fees (4000 standard and 1000 success)

Defendants solicitor gets £15000 fees

Defendant pays 19,000.

Damages? Eaten up by the cost implication of the non-beaten part 36 offer!

 

My point: rejecting a part 36 offer is still a potentially bad move but is much worse a move if the defendants costs (incurred after the part 36 offer) are likely to be sizeable compared with the damages ...... and if this is the case then "don't accept anything they offer

take them to court" becomes very risky advice!

 

Correction.

"OP had to pay £1,000 success fee (25% of £4000) which they pay out of the damages of £10,000

 

OP recovers £9000 of the £10,000 (the other £1k going on the success fee!)."

 

The suceess fee can be more than 25%, but is capped at 25% of 'current daamges'.

[BazzaS]

Hi - that is correct, if there is dishonesty or fraud.

Have got papers from the 3rd NWNF company and they have stated a success fee of 25% and the ATE insurance will be £330. There is no mention of taking an additional 35%

 

They have given examples of their fees and they say they will never take more than 35% as well as the ATE insurance premium.

 

 

Damages we have recovered for you

 

Our success fee

 

 

 

Example costs

 

 

recovered from the other side

 

Amount of success fee

 

Net amount of damages

 

 

 

 

Example ATE premium

 

You still receive

 

£2,500

 

100%

 

 

 

 

£500

 

 

 

 

£500

 

£2,000

 

 

 

 

£35

 

£1,965

 

£2,000

 

100%

 

 

 

 

£500

 

 

 

 

£500

 

£1,500

 

 

 

 

£35

 

£1,465

 

£1,500

 

100%

 

 

 

 

£500

 

 

£375

 

 

(as capped at

 

 

25% of damages in column 1)

 

£1,125

 

 

 

 

£35

 

£1,090

 

30,000

 

100%

 

£6,000

 

£6,000

 

£24,000

 

£5,000

 

£19,500*

Examples for illustration only.

 

What we will do is keep you properly advised throughout your case of the amounts involved.

 

*This is because we will never deduct more than a total of 35% from you inclusive of your ATE (insurance) premium.

 

This getting a bit confusing does the bit below mean that they can only take a maximum of 35% of any money we get, which means the ATE payment and sucess fee.

 

Overall cap on your liability for costs We will limit the total amount of charges, success fees, expenses ,disbursements and insurance premium(inclusive of VAT) payable by you (net of any contribution to your costs paid by your opponent) to a maximum of 35% of the damages you receive.

What are the usual percentages that companies charge, just want to know if 35% seems the norm.

 

It is difficult to see the figures as you've posted, since the formatting gets tricky,

 

Re-tabulating their figures as numbered headers:

1) Damages recovered , 2) Our success fee, 3) costs recovered, 4) Amount of success fee, 5) Net amount of damages

6) Example ATE premium, 7) You still receive

recovered for you from the other side

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. : drat, the site won't let me put the numbers above each column!.

£2,500 100% £500 £500 £2,000 £35 £1,965

 

£2,000 100% £500 £500 £1,500 £35 £1,465

 

£1,500 100% £500 £375* £1,125 £35 £1,090

*(as capped at 25% of damages in column 1)

 

30,000 100% £6,000 £6,000 £24,000 £5,000 £19,500

**This is because we will never deduct more than a total of 35% from you inclusive of your ATE (insurance) premium.

 

so, column 2 is capped at 25% of the damages (for a personal injury claim).

 

The ATE premium is a specified amount, rather than a percentage, but that specified amount is capped if I understand correctly.

 

Only one example they give includes the success fee needing to be capped at 25% (of the current damages) maximum success fee.

 

Taking that one example : £1,500 damages recovered. £500 costs (charged to and recovered from the other side).

Correction to my previous posts: The success fee can be up to 100% of the costs, but there is still a 25% cap: that being 25% of the current (not future loss) damages.

The 3rd row they state shows this.

£1,500 100% £500 £375* £1,125 £35 £1,090

So, the £500 success fee gets capped at £375, as £375 is 25% of £1,500

 

If I have this right:

The last row they give as an example shows damages of 30,000. If the costs had been £8,000 recovered from the other side, if there had been a 100% success fee, the maximum based on the 100% would be 8k, but 25% of 30k is 7.5k, so they don't get the whole 8k out of the damages, only 7.5k success fee, leaving 22.5k before the ATE premium.

Continuing this, the ATE premium was 5k. But, the maximum ATE and success fee combined can't be more than 35% of damages, so they can't collect the whole 5k premium, only 3k of it, leaving 19.5k damages, the same amount as in their example (as this is 65% of the 30k!).

[BazzaS]

All this success fee discussion isn't that important.

 

At the end of the day, what the OP needs to know is that they will end up having 25% deducted from their compensation, and a couple of hundred pounds for the ATE, to pay towards their own legal fees.

 

If the OP wants to shop around for a better deal, they should be looking for a firm that will deduct less than 25% rather than focus on the level of the success fee.

 

And how will that be achieved other than finding a firm with a lower percentage success fee?.

The success fee (percentage) should be similar between firms as all should be basing it on their assessment of the likelihood of succeeding with the claim.....

 

Any caps are relevant, as the OP will want to know "how much an I likely to come out with at the end of the process?"