Court ruling raises red flags over £30k legal bill in personal injury case

District judge warns against ‘artificially inflated’ costs after Express Solicitors’ £30,000 bill in minor’s personal injury case

A leading personal injury firm, Express Solicitors, has been heavily criticised in a recent judgment for the potential ‘costs padding’ of a £30,000 legal bill. District Judge Lumb, presiding over the case of SJ (a minor suing through her mother) v DGJ Tanner t/a Sopley Farm, expressed concern over the ‘considerable’ duplication of work, which he deemed could be classified as ‘costs padding’.

The case involved a claim for damages after a three-year-old was injured at the defendant’s premises. Express Solicitors sought nearly £30,000 in costs, despite the relatively modest settlement of £3,600. The bill included 89.6 hours of work supposedly carried out by 14 different fee earners, all charging rates above the guideline hourly rates for Manchester.

Judge Lumb ruled that Express Solicitors’ actions appeared to be a deliberate attempt to inflate costs, ensuring the firm could claim the maximum 25% success fee, which the firm had preemptively set, regardless of the final damages awarded. The judge criticised the firm’s approach, pointing out that the success fee should not have been stated as automatically 25%, especially when the exact amount of damages was uncertain at the time of instruction. This, according to the judge, could be considered an unlawful contingency fee.

In response, Express CEO James Maxey defended the firm’s actions, stating that many solicitors operate similarly within the fixed costs regime, where it is difficult to make a profit and provide quality service. Maxey argued that the firm’s practice of confirming the maximum deduction percentage upfront was to ensure clients were fully informed and reassured that they would only ever pay a set percentage, regardless of the work done.

Maxey also criticised the government’s shift in the burden for success fees and after-the-event insurance onto claimants, a policy he believes further complicates the legal landscape for personal injury cases. He stated that the firm is confident it offers good value and fully explains charges and contractual details to clients throughout their cases.

Judge Lumb, however, warned that such practices could attract scrutiny from the Solicitors Regulation Authority, urging firms to exercise caution in their approach to legal fees.