Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 (11 December 2008)

Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 1375 (11 December 2008)

None of the solicitors in the three appeals had an interest within regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) that required disclosure, as no reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would think that the solicitor's advice might be affected by the matters relied upon; therefore, the CFAs are enforceable.

Citation
[2008] EWCA Civ 1375
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Kier Tankard; Respondent/defendant: John Fredricks Plastics Limited; Appellant/defendant: Fawcett Old Limited; Appellant/defendant: Michael Jane Hair & Beauty; Respondent/claimant: Yvonne Hibberd; Appellant/claimant: Mark Jones; Respondent/defendant: Karl Joseph Attrill; Intervenor: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed in Jones and Tankard; appeal dismissed in Hibberd; CFAs held enforceable in all three cases.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Disclosure of Interest, Consumer Protection, Personal Injury Litigation
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Disclosure of Interest Consumer Protection Personal Injury Litigation

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

Parties

Kier Tankard

Appellant/claimant

John Fredricks Plastics Limited

Respondent/defendant

Fawcett Old Limited

Appellant/defendant

Michael Jane Hair & Beauty

Appellant/defendant

Yvonne Hibberd

Respondent/claimant

Mark Jones

Appellant/claimant

Karl Joseph Attrill

Respondent/defendant

The Law Society

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitors had an 'interest' within regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 requiring disclosure to clients
  2. 2 Whether failure to disclose such interest renders the CFA unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

None of the solicitors in the three appeals had an interest within regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) that required disclosure, as no reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would think that the solicitor's advice might be affected by the matters relied upon; therefore, the CFAs are enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in Jones and Tankard; appeal dismissed in Hibberd; CFAs held enforceable in all three cases.

Orders

  • Solicitors' appeals allowed in Jones and Tankard; defendants' appeal dismissed in Hibberd.
  • CFAs declared enforceable; costs to be determined as appropriate.