Utting v McBain [2007] EWHC 3293 (QB) (28 November 2007)

Utting v McBain [2007] EWHC 3293 (QB) (28 November 2007)

The CFA expressly included an element for deferred costs in the success fee but failed to specify the proportion as required by regulation 3(1)(b), constituting a material breach with capacity for prejudice to the claimant, rendering the agreement unenforceable.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 3293 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: David Utting; Respondent/defendant: Philip McBain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Campbell's Decision Dismissing Appeal Against Costs Officer's Ruling
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitors' Costs, Regulatory Compliance, Material Breach
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitors' Costs Regulatory Compliance Material Breach

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Utting

Appellant/claimant

Philip McBain

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Master Campbell's Decision Dismissing Appeal Against Costs Officer's Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to specify the proportion of the success fee attributable to deferred costs in the CFA rendered the agreement unenforceable under the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000, regulation 3(1)(b)
  2. 2 Whether any breach of the regulations was material and caused prejudice to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA expressly included an element for deferred costs in the success fee but failed to specify the proportion as required by regulation 3(1)(b), constituting a material breach with capacity for prejudice to the claimant, rendering the agreement unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's appeal dismissed
  • Defendant entitled to costs of appearing on the appeal, subject to assessment