Dole v ECT Recycling Ltd [2007] EWHC 90086 (Costs) (17 September 2007)

Dole v ECT Recycling Ltd [2007] EWHC 90086 (Costs) (17 September 2007)

There was no breach of Regulations 4(2)(c) or 4(2)(d) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 because, on the uncontradicted evidence, it was not common knowledge in July 2004 that BTE insurance was available to bus passengers, and the Claimant's solicitors could not reasonably have been expected to make enquiries of the Defendant about such cover. The CFA is therefore valid and enforceable.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 90086 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Mrs Kirpal Kauer Dole; Defendant/appellant: ECT Recycling Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / Appeal From Principal Costs Officer to Deputy District Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Before the Event Insurance, Regulation 4(2)(c) and (d) CFAR 2000, Enforceability of Cfas
Civil Procedure Costs Law Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements Before the Event Insurance Regulation 4(2)(c) and (d) CFAR 2000 Enforceability of Cfas

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Kirpal Kauer Dole

Claimant/respondent

ECT Recycling Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Principal Costs Officer to Deputy District Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's CFA is unenforceable due to alleged breach of Regulations 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(d) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 by failing to advise on BTE insurance.

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of Regulations 4(2)(c) or 4(2)(d) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 because, on the uncontradicted evidence, it was not common knowledge in July 2004 that BTE insurance was available to bus passengers, and the Claimant's solicitors could not reasonably have been expected to make enquiries of the Defendant about such cover. The CFA is therefore valid and enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • CFA held valid and enforceable
  • Principal Costs Officer's assessment of £7,827.19 stands