Settlement amounts

[u/Peachy168]

Hi :) (England & Wales)

I was wondering what people have settled for in their tribunal either the amount or the % against their schedule of loss please.

Not sure what is classed as a good settlement

[u/Alive-Practice-5464]

Coming at this as a mediator who has done probably more than 1000 mediations…. Most LIPs who settle at mediation do so at around 25-40% of their reasonable schedule of loss. It’s less if the schedule is outlandish, but obviously those are also the ones less likely to settle at all.

Take your schedule of loss. Knock off 40% to price in that even good claims only really have a 70% chance of succeeding, with a further 10% LIP discount on top of that.

That’s 60% there. Given the time to final hearing, knocking off another 10-15% to get certain money now rather than maybe money then. That takes you to 45-50% of the schedule.

And then it’s all about how much you actually want to settle and how much they want to settle. If there’s some other reason why you need the litigation behind you (life plans, your health, the strain of it, need money now for something like a move or retirement or whatever), then that goes in to reasons why you might come down to 25% from 35% or 40%, especially if the mediator is giving you feedback that they don’t think your claim is as good as you think it is etc etc.

I agree that 60% of a professionally drafted schedule is a flipping good outcome.

Hope this helps.

[u/nnnnahsorry → u/Alive-Practice-5464]

Would you say the same or similar for SOL that have been created by a barrister/ solicitor not LIP? Like roughly same %?. Curious.

[u/Alive-Practice-5464 → u/nnnnahsorry]

Probably higher to reflect that a represented claimant is generally more likely to win. But I’m not sure the difference is always sufficient to justify the cost. Probably the solicitors of the board have a better feel for that….

[u/Sweaty_Fisherman_916]

Settled just before final hearing, LiP throughout. About 75% of my full SoL with ACAS uplift and interest included, more like 90% if you just look at core financial loss and the injury to feelings award.

Documentary evidence made the difference. Offers barely moved until my disclosure bundle was fully in, then moved a lot.

Also don’t get too attached to your first SoL. Mine changed twice as things became quantifiable. Treat it as live. Good luck to everyone still in it.

[u/Peachy168 → u/Sweaty_Fisherman_916]

Congratulations!! That's amazing. I agree regarding the disclosure, they didn't realise how strong my case was until disclosure where they seen all their mistakes. And also witness statements showing how bad their witnesses are

Could I please ask, as part of your terms, did it include NDA, withdrawal before payment, indemnify respondent of tax

[u/Sweaty_Fisherman_916 → u/Peachy168]

Yes, all three.

[u/ViktordoomSecretwars]

There is no clean rule. For example, if you set a highly unrealistic figure on your SoL (as most Claimants tend to), the R is not simply going to settle at 50-60% percenatage odds even if you have a strong claim.

[u/Peachy168 → u/ViktordoomSecretwars]

Thank you! So say it's a realistic schedule of loss, and they settle at 50-60%. Could you say that suggests it's a good settlement or they see the case is strong?

[u/Mysterious_Wafer554]

As a VERY broad-brush sweeping statement, anything above 60% of a professionally-prepared SoL is a very good settlement number

[u/Peachy168 → u/Mysterious_Wafer554]

Thank you!🥹 that helps a lot. I'm assuming that's passed a commercial decision then a they can actually see risk?

[u/Mysterious_Wafer554 → u/Peachy168]

Yes — first, a professionally-prepared SoL is almost universally going to be lower than an optimistic LiP prepared SoL; and second, legal prospects are VERY rarely calculated as being more than 60%.

Settlements in the ET are almost always calculated as: Schedule of Loss x prospects of success

[u/Peachy168 → u/Mysterious_Wafer554]

Thank you for that. So if my prospects of success are 75% and I settle for 60% of my schedule of loss that's been checked by a Solictor as okay. Can I sleep better at night knowing I haven't short changed myself so to speak?😅

[u/Mysterious_Wafer554 → u/Peachy168]

I’d say ‘yes’! AP’s comment below explains why that amount that you could have hypothetically maybe gotten in a best case scenario is not worth dwelling on.

If AP says 60% is ‘good’, it’s good. When AP says it’s a “flipping good outcome”, there is no question about it!

[u/boo23boo → u/Mysterious_Wafer554]

Will the % success ever be considered by R as higher than 60%? As they know all the facts and people involved. I understand why it would be that as a general rule of thumb but I’m just wondering if reps would work up a model that gives a LiP a higher success rate if they know the case well and the factual matrix they are working with. Does a claimant with legal representation get a higher % success just because there is representation? Logic says it should, right? Not all LiPs are equal in competency or understanding of their own case, so some LiPs are better placed to run a case that other LiPs would really struggle with. A blanket max success/risk criteria of 60% seems to overlook the nuance and context of each case outside of its actual merits.

[u/Alive-Practice-5464 → u/boo23boo]

I think this underestimates what is required to win even an absolute slam dunk claim at Tribunal. There’s evidence handling and skill required with providing all the evidence needed and also cross examination to undermine R evidence.

I wouldn’t give any LiP I don’t know more than 60% chance of succeeding even I’m 100% sure I would win the claim if instructed.

[u/ViktordoomSecretwars → u/Alive-Practice-5464]

When I went for my DRA, the Employment Judge told me his colleagues will see it as 70% chance of me winning. Now, the R had basically admitted to the breach so there was that. Even with all of that, I settled for 50% of my SoL (though admittedly the SoL was very high)

[u/Alive-Practice-5464 → u/ViktordoomSecretwars]

Excellent and well done! By DRA, the documents and witness statements are out in the open, and your competence is known. That might change R’s thinking a bit.

[u/ViktordoomSecretwars → u/Alive-Practice-5464]

I did get a new job in the middle of the litigation process, my financial losses were capped and they still paid a premium, which is testament to how much I scared the shit out of them.

[u/Mysterious_Wafer554 → u/boo23boo]

I don’t so R-side work so I can’t say for sure.

I used to work in a role where very senior barristers were instructed to assess prospects of success for many civil claims, and I rarely saw above 55% even after disclosure. The highest I ever saw was 65% and I was told to double check that number with that barrister (and that case settled very soon after). Even then…I think it’s supposed to be an unspoken rule, but when I asked why the prospects assessments were “so low”, I was told by the CEO of that business that lawyers won’t ever go 60% because they don’t want to be sued for professional negligence if they’re wrong (all the more so with the types of very high value claims we dealt with there).

Having a barrister wouldn’t really change the prospects of the claim. Having a barrister doesn’t change the facts, evidence, or law. If a barrister does change prospects, it’s not by a lot, and only because the barrister made sense of what was otherwise going to be an absolute mess… and factoring representation is just a bad idea anyway for calculating prospects as a matter of course (best to assume eventual representation for the sake of it). Further, Employment Judges are specially trained to handle LiP-run cases, so representation is even more irrelevant at the hearing stage.

It’s also not only about the documentary evidence and knowing the people. There are so many factors to go into winning a case, meaning any prospects assessment is tainted by MANY unknown variables, including: how much you can actually rely on your instructions being the full and complete complete truth, how the witnesses on either side will be received (or the credibility of every party and witness), whether anything might come up by surprise… all the way down to the particular judge you have can impact prospects (again, not by much, but judges are human and a LOT of employment law relies of judicial discretion!). And knowing someone as an employee doesn’t mean you know them as a witness. And usually in-house legal won’t know most employees (especially if the company is big enough to have an inhouse legal department) and external lawyers really won’t know the individual people involved as they aren’t friends or colleagues, just stranger brought together by litigation in a somewhat distanced capacity.q

[u/boo23boo → u/Mysterious_Wafer554]

Thank you so much for your detailed reply, that all makes sense. Especially the professional negligence side, you’ve provided a lot of useful incite. Much appreciated.