Child’s Injury Damages Slashed in Half-High Court Restores Solicitor’s 50% Deduction

High Court restores 50% damages cut for law firm after boy’s injury settlement sparks dispute

The High Court has ruled that a personal injury firm acted lawfully in deducting 50% of a child client’s damages, upholding the firm’s right to recover both a success fee and after-the-event (ATE) insurance premium.

In a significant judgment for personal injury practitioners, His Honour Judge Monty KC allowed the appeal by Express Solicitors, reversing a county court decision that had drastically reduced the deductions claimed by the firm. The ruling is seen as an important clarification of how much solicitors can reasonably take from client compensation under a conditional fee agreement.

The case, Duffield v VW Morrison Supermarkets Ltd, involved a five-year-old boy who sustained injuries in a supermarket incident. Express Solicitors represented him through his mother, who acted as litigation friend. The matter settled for £2,250 and required court approval of the proposed deductions.

Under the firm’s agreement, deductions were capped at 50% of the total damages. Express claimed £1,125—split between a success fee and a £675 ATE insurance premium, intended to protect against the risk of paying adverse costs.

At first instance, Deputy District Judge Walton slashed the firm’s success fee to just £225—half of what was sought—and disallowed the ATE premium altogether. He ruled that the deductions were disproportionate, suggesting the boy’s compensation had been “eaten up” by legal costs. The judge also expressed doubt over the need for a costs-based insurance policy, stating that incurring the premium was not reasonable in the context.

However, Judge Monty strongly disagreed with that assessment. In allowing the appeal, he said the lower court judge had wrongly equated the firm’s success fee with the 10% damages uplift introduced by the Court of Appeal in Simmons v Castle. Monty held that this comparison was flawed and had led to an incorrect outcome.

Regarding the insurance premium, the High Court made it clear that the ATE policy had been “reasonably entered into.” Monty ruled it was illogical to allow the success fee while simultaneously refusing to permit the deduction of the ATE. He criticised the lower judge for approaching the issue with a mindset that the total deductions were inherently too high, and for subsequently adjusting figures to meet that preconception.

“The judge seems to have started from the proposition that the total deductions sought were too high, and then fashioned a way of reducing them. That, with respect, was the wrong approach,” Monty stated.

He concluded that the firm was entitled to the full 50% deduction, amounting to £1,125 from the total damages award.

The boy’s mother had previously confirmed she understood the risks, the structure of the conditional fee agreement (CFA), and the role of ATE insurance before agreeing to proceed. Her informed consent played a key part in the appeal outcome.

This ruling arrives at a time when deductions from client damages remain a highly sensitive issue. The personal injury sector continues to face mounting scrutiny over costs, success fees, and the transparency of legal funding arrangements.

For many firms operating on slim margins, particularly in low-value claims, the High Court’s judgment will come as welcome reassurance that properly executed funding arrangements can be upheld—even where the compensation involved is modest.

Nonetheless, the case reignites debate about the balance between solicitor recovery and claimant protection, especially in cases involving minors. The question of what is “fair” remains far from settled.