Expert Witness Journal Issue 67 June/July 2026 - Flipbook - Page 69
Case Note: Spicer v Greene King
Brewing and Retailing Limited
[2026] EWCC 18
by Kitty Kirton, Probationary Tenant at Hailsham Chambers.
insurance policy. They instructed a medical
expert through their wholly owned subsidiary
medical reporting agency. District Judge Lumb
described the claim as a “very straightforward
Occupiers Liability personal injury claim” (§10)
and that “[a]ll the solicitors had to do was to
advise on funding, obtain a medical report with
copies of the notes and records, complete the
online minor injury portal Claim Noti昀椀cation
Form and then provide a copy of the medical
report to the Defendant and negotiate
settlement and a formal written advice on
settlement for the bene昀椀t of the Court” (§11).
Introduction
1.
The judgment in Spicer v Greene King Brewing
and Retailing Limited [2026] EWCC 18 contains
guidance for practitioners on the correct tests
to apply when determining the deduction of
Conditional Fee Agreement (“CFA”) success
fees and After the Event insurance (“ATE”)
premiums, in personal injury claims brought on
behalf of children.
2.
All paragraph references in this note are to
those in the judgment unless otherwise stated.
Facts
3.
The Claimant, a child then aged 4, had visited
a pub owned by the Defendant. While playing
in the pub garden, the child tripped on uneven
paving slabs and su昀昀ered a nasty gash to
his forehead. His wound fully healed within
two months, and he was left with a faint scar
below his hairline which was visible on close
inspection.
4.
The Claimant’s mother acted as the Litigation
Friend. The pub manager admitted liability
for the accident straight away and o昀昀ered the
child’s mother some vouchers to spend on a
meal at the pub on a future occasion. The child’s
mother thought that vouchers were insu昀케cient
compensation for the injury and had emailed
the Defendant who passed her email on to their
Claims Handling Agents. They advised that
they would deal with the claim but any award
of damages would have to be approved by the
Court as they were sought for a child. They
asked her to instruct solicitors to get a medical
report to forward to them so that they could
settle the claim.
5.
The solicitors advised the Claimant’s mother
to sign up to a CFA and to take out an ATE
EXPERT WITNESS JOURNAL
67
6.
A settlement of £10,000 was agreed between
the parties and approved at the infant approval
hearing. The 昀椀xed costs had been agreed
prior to the hearing. The only further issue
for the Court to consider was the request for a
deduction of the success fee under the CFA and
of the ATE premium set at 10% of the recovered
damages plus insurance premium tax (“IPT”).
7.
A schedule of solicitor and own client costs
claimed £13,316 worth of pro昀椀t costs with
recorded time of 73.1 hours incurred between
18 fee earners. The CFA and Risk Assessment
assessed the percentage success fee at the
maximum 100%. As 100% of £13,316 would be
greater than 25% of the damages (ie £2,500), a
success fee of £2,500 was sought to be deducted
together with the ATE premium including IPT
of £1,120. This meant total sought deductions of
£3,620 (ie 36.2% of the damages). District Judge
Lumb was “sceptical that even on a solicitor and
own client indemnity basis that £13,316 worth
of costs could have been reasonably incurred
and be reasonable in amount and the success
fee percentage of 100% was obviously too high”
(§16). The Court directed that the solicitors
昀椀le a complete copy of their 昀椀le of papers for
inspection and assessment.
JUNE 2026
