Brookes v DC Leisure Management Ltd & Anor [2013] EW Misc 17 (CC) (17 September 2013)

Brookes v DC Leisure Management Ltd & Anor [2013] EW Misc 17 (CC) (17 September 2013)

The CFA expressly limited the claim to Exeter City Council. There was no evidence to support an implied term, valid variation, or estoppel by convention to extend the retainer to the Respondent. Therefore, costs incurred under the CFA for work against the Respondent are not recoverable.

Citation
[2013] EW Misc 17 (CC)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Louise Brookes; Respondent/first Defendant/part 20 Claimant: DC Leisure Management Limited; Second Defendant: Technogym UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Detailed Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Retainer Validity, Indemnity Principle, Variation of Contract, Estoppel by Convention
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Retainer Validity Indemnity Principle Variation of Contract Estoppel by Convention

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

Parties

Louise Brookes

Appellant/claimant

DC Leisure Management Limited

Respondent/first Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Technogym UK Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Detailed Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs incurred under a CFA naming the wrong defendant are recoverable
  2. 2 Whether a term can be implied or varied in a CFA to cover the correct defendant
  3. 3 Whether estoppel by convention applies to bind parties to costs liability

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA expressly limited the claim to Exeter City Council. There was no evidence to support an implied term, valid variation, or estoppel by convention to extend the retainer to the Respondent. Therefore, costs incurred under the CFA for work against the Respondent are not recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs for the period prior to the Respondent’s effective settlement offer.
  • Judgment handed down in open court; hearing adjourned pending indication on consequential order.