Page 14 - Bundle for MF Final

Bates no 013

Paragraph 9.3: I do not think you should agree to pay for the disbursements as you go along.
This could be a serious strain on your cash flow and given that KN is taking on what we think
is a sure fire winner for a very significant success fee, this should be something they should
bear (and then bill you at the end of the case).

Paragraph 11.1 comes back to the question of costs. You want to have insurance for this in the
event that you lose. If you win (which we all anticipate) costs should be charged as one lump
on a final invoice. You don't want to be worried month in month out (if this drags on) by
wodge of massive expense bills

Paragraph 11.3. I definitely would not agree that you pay KNs invoices on delivery. They are
either paid by Miss C or by the costs insurance company. There should be no exception to
this.

Paragraph 11.4. If you get the above terms correct there will be no circumstances in which you
have to pay interest.·

Paragraph 12.1. I would ask KN -based on their experience- to give you an estimated
breakdown of costs depending on whether the case is settled quickly goes to trial. You cannot
expect such schedules to be legally binding but they will give you some idea of what is going
on. I will come back onto this point later on

Paragraph 12.2. Counsel can act on a contingency fee arrangement. You need to check
whether such an arrangement would be regarded as a "success fee". Bear in mind that if you
"win" all of your costs can be recovered from the other side except the "success elements".
/ This is why it seems to me to be very important to clarify how a barrister's costs can be
l recovered (irrespective of whether or not he or she acts on a contingency fee).

General. It seems to me what that one of the problems with contingency fees is that control
the case is shared between you and the lawyers. I think you must insist on having the final
say. How you achieve this is a different matter.

Paragraph 13.1. .. You do not want to commit to paying costs upfront except the initial £500

Paragraph 17.3. KN should accept responsibility for the advice of third parties selected by
them or guarantee that they have sufficient indemnity coverage in place

Paragraph 17.5. I don't like this severable liability bit. It is an example of contracts being
100% in favour of the lawyers

Paragraph 17.6. It seems to me that your potential award of damages could exceed £3 million
and you may wish to ensure that the liability limit is increased.

Paragraph 17. 7. I don't know how this time limit matches up with any "statute of limitations"
type restrictions but it should align. You should not agree on a shorter period than you are
otherwise entitled to.

Paragraph 18: Anti-Money Laundering Regulations. Total bullshit and verbiage which you can

(J) ignore unless you are a secret member of the Norwegian Al Qaeda.
b.O
ro
0..