Morris & Anor v London Borough of Southwark [2010] EWHC B1 (QB) (05 February 2010)

Morris & Anor v London Borough of Southwark [2010] EWHC B1 (QB) (05 February 2010)

On the facts, the indemnity clause in the CFA did not create a real or significant risk of conflict of interest or undermine the ends of justice. The solicitor's financial stake was modest and outweighed by the scheme's benefits. The indemnity was not insurance within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The CFA is enforceable.

Citation
[2010] EWHC B1
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Morris; Claimant/appellant: Mr Sibthorpe; Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Southwark
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court Costs Office, Deputy Master Hoffman
Outcome
Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Champerty, Maintenance, Public Policy, Insurance Law, Financial Services Regulation
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Champerty Maintenance Public Policy Insurance Law Financial Services Regulation

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Morris

Claimant/appellant

Mr Sibthorpe

Claimant/appellant

London Borough of Southwark

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Supreme Court Costs Office, Deputy Master Hoffman

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a solicitor's indemnity against adverse costs within a CFA renders the agreement unenforceable for champerty or maintenance
  2. 2 Whether such an indemnity constitutes insurance under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, the indemnity clause in the CFA did not create a real or significant risk of conflict of interest or undermine the ends of justice. The solicitor's financial stake was modest and outweighed by the scheme's benefits. The indemnity was not insurance within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The CFA is enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; cross-appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • Deputy Master's decision set aside.
  • Matter remitted to a Costs Master for detailed assessment.