Sidhu v Sandhu & Anor [2008] EWHC 90108 (Costs) (24 July 2008)

Sidhu v Sandhu & Anor [2008] EWHC 90108 (Costs) (24 July 2008)

The CFA failed to specify, as required by Regulation 3(1)(b), how much of the success fee related to the cost of postponement of payment of fees and expenses. This omission was a material breach, as it created uncertainty for the client and undermined the protection intended by the Regulations. The breach rendered the CFA unenforceable.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 90108 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Kanwaljit Singh Sidhu; 1st Defendant: Kewal Singh Sandhu; 2nd Defendant: Kalvinder Singh Sandhu
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreement) / Post Appeal Remittal for Determination of Enforceability of CFA
Outcome
CFA declared unenforceable due to material breach of Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Enforceability of Cfas, Compliance With Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Enforceability of Cfas Compliance With Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kanwaljit Singh Sidhu

Claimant

Kewal Singh Sandhu

1st Defendant

Kalvinder Singh Sandhu

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreement) / Post Appeal Remittal for Determination of Enforceability of CFA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) dated 26 October 2005 complies with Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether any breach of the Regulations is material and renders the CFA unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA failed to specify, as required by Regulation 3(1)(b), how much of the success fee related to the cost of postponement of payment of fees and expenses. This omission was a material breach, as it created uncertainty for the client and undermined the protection intended by the Regulations. The breach rendered the CFA unenforceable.

Court Disposition

CFA declared unenforceable due to material breach of Regulation 3(1)(b) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000.

Orders

  • Parties invited to submit written submissions on costs with apportioned schedules.
  • Decision on costs to be made on paper unless parties request attendance at hand-down.