Sibthorpe & Anor v London Borough of Southwark

Sibthorpe & Anor v London Borough of Southwark

The indemnity provision in the CFA, whereby solicitors indemnify their client against adverse costs, is not champertous and does not render the CFA unenforceable. The law of champerty should not be extended to invalidate such indemnities, especially in the context of access to justice and the legislative trend to restrict, not expand, champerty. The CFA is not a contract of insurance under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Regina Sibthorp; Claimant/respondent: Danri Morris; Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Southwark
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 January 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Champerty, Conditional Fee Agreements, Public Policy, Costs Indemnity, Contracts of Insurance
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Champerty Conditional Fee Agreements Public Policy Costs Indemnity Contracts of Insurance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina Sibthorp

Claimant/respondent

Danri Morris

Claimant/respondent

London Borough of Southwark

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor's indemnity to a client against adverse costs is champertous and voids a conditional fee agreement (CFA)
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity provision renders the CFA unenforceable under the rule against champerty
  3. 3 Whether the CFA is a contract of insurance under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The indemnity provision in the CFA, whereby solicitors indemnify their client against adverse costs, is not champertous and does not render the CFA unenforceable. The law of champerty should not be extended to invalidate such indemnities, especially in the context of access to justice and the legislative trend to restrict, not expand, champerty. The CFA is not a contract of insurance under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal on champerty issue dismissed
  • Permission to appeal on insurance issue refused