Court proceedings have opened this week in a claim by former clients of national firm Slater and Gordon over costs deductions. A five-day points-of-dispute hearing in relation to test claims before costs judge Rowley in the Royal Courts of Justice yesterday heard an application over some witnesses in 10 of the test cases who were not able to attend court.

The judge ruled that it would be ‘completely unsatisfactory…to try and deal with the evidence when it cannot be challenged on the witness’ points’. He added: ‘Dealing with [it] justly and proportionately, the defendant is not on equal footing if those statements are allowed in unchallenged.’

The judge refused to allow the claimants to rely on the evidence of witnesses who ‘are not in court’. Four of the claimants’ 10 witnesses are able to appear in court in person.

The case centres around fees deducted from personal injury damages obtained by Slater and Gordon. Each claimant retained the firm to pursue a personal injury claim on a conditional fee agreement. The agreements required the claimant to pay the firm’s basic charges, disbursements and success fee which was capped at 25% of damages plus payment of the after the event (ATE) insurance premium.

According to court documents, the firm argues it was entitled to its costs for work done, and the 25% maximum the claimant would be required to pay was ‘made clear’ in the claim pack. It added that the claimants have no legal basis to seek repayments of costs that have already been paid and the claimants’ preliminary points of dispute are without merit’.

Giving evidence yesterday, former client Michelle Webber told the court she ‘believed [the firm] were claiming [their costs] off the other person, the other person’s insurance’. She added: ‘I was advised my settlement was settled at £10,000. They did not say [there would be a] 25% deduction or you would pay for your medical expenses until I called them back.

‘She [the solicitor] rang me to discuss [settlement]. I was not told in that conversation that there was going to be a 25% deduction. I was aware of the 25% at the end of the claim. I accepted that is what is in the documents after the claim.

‘It took four years to come to this settlement amount. At that moment, when I agreed to this settlement, I just could not be bothered to fight anymore with Slater and Gordon. I believed I would not have had any options.’

Terry Moult, another former Slater and Gordon client, told the court he felt ‘pressured’ to sign the CFA after a phone call with the firm. He said: ‘It feels like you’re pressured to get it done there and then.’

Robert Marven KC, for Slater and Gordon, said: ‘I suggest you were not put under any pressure.’

Moult said: ‘I think I was. I [had to sign] basically to get my claim processed, to start the process of my claim. I did not know if there was a time [limit]. The pressure was there. I had a lot of stuff going on at that time.’

Asked if he wanted to shop around, he could have done so, Moult said: ‘It did not feel like it at the time. I did not feel like I had a long time…to get it going. They said as soon as I get it signed, I get the ball rolling.

‘I found out [later] that not all solicitors take the same amount and the ATE policy, I did not know about which I also challenged.’

The hearing continues.