PHC Port | Order Efficiency

Ask Chet to explain this concern

Chet is typing...
project_id: 378 - Dispossessed - Concerns (42) People (1) Events (10)





Concern #490 - CFA / ATE Structure Could Erode Member Recovery and Create Misaligned Incentives

Project:
378 - Dispossessed

Description:
The group is exploring a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) supported by After-The-Event (ATE) insurance to pursue claims related to the Croyde Bay Holiday Club dispute. While this approach reduces upfront costs, success fees, ATE premiums, and disbursements could significantly reduce net recovery for members. Agreement terms, including withdrawal clauses, may inadvertently lock members into commitments, reducing flexibility during negotiations or settlements. Recent discussions highlight concerns about the impact of Mike Saltmarsh's bankruptcy on the value of the legal route, suggesting a need to consider alternative strategies, such as leveraging the group's connection to the property.

Desired Outcome:
Members have a litigation option that is financially transparent, proportionate, and aligned with member interests, with clear net-to-member expectations, strong protections against adverse costs, and no accidental lock-in that prevents individuals from accepting fair settlement offers.

What Could Go Wrong:
Net recovery to members could be heavily diluted by success fees, ATE premiums, and disbursements. Members might sign agreements without understanding key terms, leading to unexpected liabilities. The group could lose negotiating leverage if trustees believe members will receive little or are unlikely to proceed. The dispute could become prolonged and procedural, increasing legal and insurance costs relative to the benefit delivered to members. Confidence within the group could fracture due to perceived unfairness or lack of transparency.

Current Situation:
Preliminary legal views suggest a credible basis for claims, such as fiduciary duty or negligence. A CFA/ATE route is being explored to avoid upfront funding. However, indicative ranges suggest a substantial portion of recovery could be allocated to success fees and insurance. Members have requested clarity on net outcomes and liability risks if someone withdraws after signing. Concerns have been raised about the impact of Mike Saltmarsh's bankruptcy on the legal strategy.

Action Strategy:
Obtain a one-page deal sheet from any shortlisted firm showing success fee percentages, ATE premium basis, disbursements, and worked examples of net-to-member outcomes. Require plain-language confirmation of whether members can accept an individual settlement without penalty, the exact withdrawal liabilities, and what triggers ATE costs. Treat litigation as a gated decision, with a pre-action protocol and settlement attempt first, proceeding to litigation only if terms are understood and acceptable. Maintain a PHC Port evidence trail to strengthen negotiating leverage and reduce legal discovery thrash.

Concern Category:
Litigation Funding

Keywords:
CFA, ATE insurance, no win no fee, success fee, net recovery, withdrawal clauses

Analysis: Not available

Snapshot History
C490_260218.pdf

Request Action

Comments for this Concern Item



I believe that the meeting with the solicitor highlighted the risks of litigation and made it clear that pursuing that option may not be valid. I think we should proactively reach out to the receiver individually instead of waiting for the report, which seems to be delayed. I feel that the delay in the report indicates a lack of competence or interest from the solicitor.
See Original
[2026-06-03 20:12:58 - David Winter - new]

I am concerned about the management's decision to halt information gathering and replace the comment collection mechanism with a WhatsApp group. I find this change surprising and believe it could impact future cases.
See Original
[2026-05-28 10:20:43 - David Winter - new]

I appreciate the setup and believe it will help manage comments better. However, I am concerned about the potential for ongoing fees from solicitors. I would like to confirm with Slee Blackwell that they have added the leasehold details to the land registry. Additionally, I think it would be best to contact the Receiver, but I prefer that everyone agrees to avoid jeopardizing our current legal process.
See Original
[2026-05-27 08:20:17 - Anonymous - new]

I appreciate the setup and agree that we should address the latest issue ourselves.
See Original
[2026-05-27 06:53:34 - Anonymous - new]

I believe we should bypass the solicitors and directly contact the receiver to declare our interest as joint property owners.
See Original
[2026-05-26 22:53:23 - David Winter - new]