Law v Liverpool City Council [2005] EWHC 90020 (Costs) (10 May 2005)

Law v Liverpool City Council [2005] EWHC 90020 (Costs) (10 May 2005)

The CFA as executed covered only the claim against Liverpool City Council, as expressly named. There was no valid written variation to include Berrybridge Housing Association. Therefore, no success fee was recoverable from the second defendant, though a basic retainer existed for work done against them.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 90020 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Phillip Law; First Defendant: Liverpool City Council; Second Defendant: Berrybridge Housing Association
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From District Judge's Order on Costs and CFA Validity
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs Orders, Personal Injury, Retainer Agreements
Civil Procedure Contract Law Conditional Fee Agreements Costs Orders Personal Injury Retainer Agreements

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Law

Claimant

Liverpool City Council

First Defendant

Berrybridge Housing Association

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From District Judge's Order on Costs and CFA Validity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the original CFA covered the claim against the second defendant (Berrybridge Housing Association)
  2. 2 Whether a valid retainer existed for work against the second defendant
  3. 3 Whether the CFA was validly varied in writing to include the second defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA as executed covered only the claim against Liverpool City Council, as expressly named. There was no valid written variation to include Berrybridge Housing Association. Therefore, no success fee was recoverable from the second defendant, though a basic retainer existed for work done against them.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted on the CFA issue
  • Appeal dismissed: CFA did not cover second defendant; no success fee recoverable from second defendant