Kenneth L Kellar Carib West Limited v Stanley A Williams: PC 24 Jun 2004

(Turks and Caicos Islands) The appellant had failed in his action but argued that he should not be called upon to pay the costs of the respondent because there had been an unlawful conditional fee agreement. The bill had referred to one factor as the degree of success in the case, and the respondent argued that this showed the existence of a conditional fee element.
Held: The letter relied upon did not establish what was suggested, and nor could the fact that the remuneration rate had not been formally agreed in advance. It was not unlawful as a conditional fee arrangement. The case was remitted for taxation to proceed.
The Privy Council expressed the view that ‘it may now be time to reconsider the accepted prohibition in the light of modern practising conditions.’
Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Carswell, Dame Sian Elias
[2004] UKPC 30, [2005] 4 Costs LR 559, (2004) 148 SJLB 821
Bailii, PC, PC
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedWay v Latilla HL 1937
Mr Way (W), the plaintiff, was employed by Ariston, which had mining operations in Africa, as a consulting engineer and manager. He met the respondent (L) in England. He was asked to seek options to acquire concessions the respondent might acquire. . .
CitedThai Trading (a Firm) v Taylor and Taylor (of Taylors Solicitors, Caversham) CA 27-Feb-1998
A solicitor had agreed with his wife to act for her in litigation on the understanding that he would only recover his profit costs if she succeeded.
Held: This agreement did not offend public policy. This type of agreement was distinguished . .
CitedHazlett v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council QBD 2-Dec-1999
The need for a party claiming his costs to give evidence to prove his entitlement to costs rather than relying on the presumption in his favour, will not arise if the defendant simply puts the complainant to proof of his entitlement to costs. The . .
See alsoKellar v Williams PC 7-Feb-2000
PC (Turks and Caicos Islands) The parties disputed whether sums paid to the company had been by way of loan or as capital contributions which after payment of debts were distributable among the shareholders.
CitedGeraghty and Co v Awwad and Another CA 25-Nov-1999
The court considered an assertion that a contract for fee sharing with a solicitors firm was unenforceable being in breach of the Solicitors Practice Rules.
Held: The court refused to follow Thai Trading. There should no longer be any common . .

Cited by:
See AlsoKellar v Williams PC 7-Feb-2000
PC (Turks and Caicos Islands) The parties disputed whether sums paid to the company had been by way of loan or as capital contributions which after payment of debts were distributable among the shareholders.
CitedSibthorpe and Morris v London Borough of Southwark CA 25-Jan-2011
The court was asked as to the extent to which the ancient rule against champerty prevents a solicitor agreeing to indemnify his claimant client against any liability for costs which she may incur against the defendant in the litigation in which the . .
CitedPatel, Re Defendant’s Cost Order CACD 6-Jul-2012
The defendant had been granted a defendant costs order, but he had not complied with the Rules by first outlining the type of costs and amount claimed’ and the Court had not required compliance. He had successfully appealed against a conviction for . .
CitedRadford 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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 May 2021; Ref: scu.198381