The solicitors appealed a finding that a conditional fee agreement with their client was unenforceable as against their client for failing to meet the requirements of the 1990 Act, which in turn deprived them of a right to claim the costs from the defendant. It was said that the client care letter did not show an unconditional intention to enter into a conditional fee agreement for services provided before the agreement.
Held: The solicitor’s appeal failed. The purpose of s58 was the protection of clients. ‘the work done before a decision is made not to pursue the claim pursuant to the last paragraph on the page is not the provision of litigation services. In my judgment, ‘contemplated proceedings’ are proceedings of which it can be said that there is at least a real likelihood that they will be issued. Until the potential defendant disputes the claim, it is not possible to say that proceedings are contemplated. Advising a client as to whether he or she has a good prima facie case and writing a letter of claim are not enough to amount to litigation services. ‘
Judges:
Dyson LJ
Citations:
[2006] EWCA Civ 1120, Times 25-Aug-2006
Links:
Statutes:
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, Access to Justice Act 1999
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hollins v Russell etc CA 22-May-2003
Six appeals concerned a number of aspects of the new Conditional Fee Agreement.
Held: It should be normal for a CFA, redacted as necessary, to be disclosed for costs proceedings where a success fee is claimed. If a party seeks to rely on the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Legal Professions, Costs
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243994