英國最高法院（UKSC）裁定（Hirachand v Hirachand, 2024 UKSC 43），根據1975 年《繼承法（家庭和受扶養人條款）》（1975 年法案）作出的法院命令不得包括任何訴訟成功費用，該費用由勝訴的原告向其律師支付。
該案涉及Navinchandra Dayalal Hirachand的女兒（原告）根據1975年遺產法對其遺產提出的索賠，原告通過有條件收費協議（CFA）為她的索賠提供資金，因此她需要繳納72%的附加費如果她的訴求成功的話。她要求將這筆款項添加到她的賠償金中，因為她無法根據通常的「敗訴方付費」民事訴訟規則收回這些費用。這是因為，根據 1990 年《法院和法律服務法》修訂版第58A(6)條的規定，支付成功費的規定可能不包含在「訴訟費用命令」中。
英格蘭及威爾斯高等法院（EWHC）一審判決原告從遺產中取得139,000英鎊的合理補償。這筆錢包括16,750英鎊的成功費，法官認為這是她經濟需求的一部分。
死者的遺孀對判決的這一部分提出上訴，認為根據1975年《民事訴訟法》，法院無權在實質裁決中規定成功費用。然而，2021年10月，英格蘭和威爾斯上訴法院維持了EWHC的意見。
英國最高法院現已一致推翻了這兩項判決。法院允許寡婦上訴，並不允許在《1975 年法案》的財務補助獎金中增加費用。根據1975年《民事訴訟法》的規定，訴訟中基本費用的追償受《民事訴訟規則》中的費用制度管轄，該規則規定，這些費用應透過費用命令的方式處理。英國最高法院表示，如果一方能夠將基本費用作為實質裁決的一部分收回，這將破壞費用制度並產生「不連貫」的結果。
法院指出，出現這種情況的原因是英國政府於2010年委託撰寫的《傑克森報告》指出，有條件收費安排是造成民事訴訟費用過高的主要原因。該報告建議，基於公共政策原因，不再收回成功費。結果是，1990年《法院和法律服務法》增加了第58A(6)條，禁止追討成功費。
英國最高法院表示，合理的立場是，在任何民事訴訟中（包括根據1975年法案進行的民事訴訟中），成功費都不能作為實質裁決的一部分予以追償。這一立場得到了《民事訴訟規則》第36部分的支持，該部分假定費用只能透過費用制度的運作來處理，如果成功費用作為實質性的一部分可收回，則這「幾乎不可行」。
對死者遺孀有利的裁決為繼承糾紛提供了更多的確定性，並且使人們更清楚地了解了提出索賠的財務影響。律師事務所 Mishcon de Reya 評論：這也可能導致原告在CFA上聘請律師進行的涉及1975年法案索賠的審判數量減少，「因為存在取得虛假成功的風險」。「如果他們贏了，原告的賠償金可能會全部被他們的法律費用成功費所抵消。」
Success fee cannot be added to 1975 Act awards, says UKSC
A court order made under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) cannot include any allowance for a litigation success fee payable by the successful claimant to their solicitors, the UK Supreme Court (UKSC) has ruled (Hirachand v Hirachand, 2024 UKSC 43).
The case concerned a 1975 Act claim on the estate of Navinchandra Dayalal Hirachand (the deceased) by his daughter (the claimant), who had funded her claim by a conditional fee arrangement (CFA) that made her liable to a 72 per cent uplift fee if her claim succeeded. She asked for this sum to be added to her award, as she could not recover these costs under the usual ‘loser-pays’ civil litigation rules. This is because provision for payment of a success fee may not be included in a 'costs order made in proceedings', according to section 58A(6) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 as amended.
At first instance the England and Wales High Court (EWHC) awarded the claimant GBP139,000 for reasonable provision from the estate. This sum included a GBP16,750 contribution towards the success fee, which the judge considered part of her financial need.
The deceased’s widow appealed against this part of the judgment, arguing that the court had no power to make provision for the success fee in a substantive award under the 1975 Act. However, the EWHC’s opinion was upheld by the England and Wales Court of Appeal in October 2021.
The UKSC has now unanimously overturned both judgments. It allowed the widow's appeal and disallowed the addition of the fee uplift to the 1975 Act financial provision award. The recovery of base costs in proceedings under the 1975 Act is governed by the costs regime contained in the Civil Procedure Rules, which states that they are to be dealt with by way of an order for costs. It would undermine the costs regime and produce an 'incoherent' result if a party could recover base costs as part of the substantive award, the UKSC said.
The court noted that this arose because the UK government-commissioned Jackson Report in 2010 had identified conditional fee arrangements as the major contributor to disproportionate costs in civil litigation. The report had recommended that success fees cease to be recoverable on public policy grounds. The result was the prohibition on the recovery of success fees by the addition of s.58A(6) to the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
The logical position, said the UKSC, is to say that success fees are not recoverable as part of a substantive award in any civil proceedings, including those under the 1975 Act. This position is supported by a consideration of part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which assumes that costs are to be dealt with only through the operation of the costs regime and would be 'virtually unworkable' if success fees are recoverable as part of the substantive award.
The ruling in favour of the deceased's widow provides more certainty in inheritance disputes and a clearer understanding of the financial implications of pursuing a claim. It may also lead to a decrease in the number of trials involving 1975 Act claims pursued by claimants with solicitors on a CFA 'due to the risk of achieving a hollow success', commented law firm Mishcon de Reya. 'Should they win, the claimant's award may be entirely consumed by the success fee for their legal costs.'
Sources:
• UKSC (summary)
• BAILII
• Law Society Gazette
• Mishcon de Reya
• BAILII (EWCA 2021)