Christopher Clarke J upheld the validity of a retrospective CFA entered into between solicitor and client on the eve of a settlement, in the knowledge that the existing arrangement might be vulnerable to challenge. The paying party alleged undue influence.
Held: The challenge was rejected. The client had been ‘prepared to assist her solicitors recover their fees despite the challenge to the validity of CFA 1’, and that it would be ‘entirely understandable for her not to seek to rely on the unattractive contention that [the solicitors] should get nothing at all for what they had done . . ‘
Judges:
Christopher Clarke J
Citations:
[2009] EWHC 12 (QB), [2009] 1 WLR 2732, [2010] 1 All ER 802, [2009] 2 Costs LR 206, [2009] NPC 7
Links:
Citing:
Appeal from – Forde v Birmingham City Council SCCO 30-Apr-2008
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Radford and Another v Frade and Others QBD 8-Jul-2016
The court was asked as to the terms on which solicitors and Counsel were retained to act for the defendants. The appeals did not raise any issues concerning costs practice, and were by way of review of the Costs Judge’s rulings, and not by way of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Costs, Undue Influence
Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279942
