Butt v Nizami [2006] EWHC 159 (QB) (09 February 2006)

Butt v Nizami [2006] EWHC 159 (QB) (09 February 2006)

In cases falling under CPR 45 Section II, entitlement to fixed recoverable costs and success fees does not depend on the existence of a valid and enforceable CFA, nor does the indemnity principle apply to the fixed figures recoverable under the rules. The receiving party need only demonstrate compliance with the conditions laid down under the rules, not the validity of the retainer. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 159 (QB)
Parties
Defendant/appellant: Mohammed Butt; Claimant/respondent: Christi Nizami; Claimant/respondent: Cadhar Kamuluden
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Appeal From Order of Master O'hare Dated 30 June 2005
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Indemnity Principle, Fixed Recoverable Costs, Success Fees, Disbursements, Road Traffic Accidents
Civil Procedure Costs Law Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements Indemnity Principle Fixed Recoverable Costs Success Fees Disbursements +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammed Butt

Defendant/appellant

Christi Nizami

Claimant/respondent

Cadhar Kamuluden

Claimant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court, Queen's Bench Division, Appeal From Order of Master O'hare Dated 30 June 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether entitlement to fixed recoverable costs and success fees under CPR 45 Section II depends on the existence of a valid and enforceable conditional fee agreement (CFA)
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity principle applies to fixed recoverable costs and success fees under CPR 45 Section II
  3. 3 Whether the paying party is entitled to challenge the validity of the CFA or require certification of compliance with the regulations

Ratio Decidendi

In cases falling under CPR 45 Section II, entitlement to fixed recoverable costs and success fees does not depend on the existence of a valid and enforceable CFA, nor does the indemnity principle apply to the fixed figures recoverable under the rules. The receiving party need only demonstrate compliance with the conditions laid down under the rules, not the validity of the retainer. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant's appeal in each case is dismissed.