The claimant appealed against a decision that the conditional fee agreement with her solicitors had been unenforceable because the solicitors had not disclosed to her a conflicting interest in recommending insurers. The issue was whether the CFA was one within Regulation 3A of the 2003 Regulations under which ‘the client is liable to pay his legal representative’s fees and expenses only to the extent that the sums are recovered in respect of the relevant proceedings’ (known as a ‘CFA lite’). But the exercise was one of construing the agreement.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The court should analyse the arrangement for the agreement, the supporting client-care letter and the policy which was recommended. Its contents were of legitimate concern to the clients, not least because they formed the justification for imposing on the clients a substantial costs liability in the event of success.
Waller LJ said: ‘I can see no reason why the court should not look at the whole package produced by the solicitor, the CFA agreement, the rule 15 letter explaining to the client the effect of the agreement, and indeed the insurance policy recommended by the solicitor . . ‘
Judges:
Waller LJ VP, Longmore LJ, Hughes Lj
Citations:
[2008] 1 WLR 1590, [2007] EWCA Civ 1356
Links:
Statutes:
Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 (SI 2000 No 692). , Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 27(1), Conditional Fee Agreement (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2003
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 . .
Cited – Garrett v Halton Borough Council CA 18-Jul-2006
. .
Cited by:
Cited – Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd; Jones v Attrill etc CA 11-Dec-2008
The defendants sought to argue that the conditional fee arrangement used by the claimant’s solicitors had been void under the 2000 regulations. They claimed that the solicitors had failed to disclose an interest in the policies sold.
Held: No . .
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.
Legal Professions, Costs
Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262936