Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2016] EWHC 1600 (QB) (08 July 2016)

Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2016] EWHC 1600 (QB) (08 July 2016)

The CFA between the defendants and their solicitors was limited in scope to procedural applications existing or contemplated at the time of agreement, and did not extend to substantive defence or later applications for summary judgment. Upon entering into the CFA, the prior conventional retainer was superseded in its entirety. No enforceable retainer existed for work outside the CFA's scope after its exhaustion, and any implied retainer would have been a CFA, which was unenforceable for lack of writing under s.58(3)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Counsel's fees were likewise not recoverable for work outside the CFA's scope or for clients not named in the CFA.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1600
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Radford; Claimant/respondent: The Michael Radford Partnership; Defendant/appellant: Alejendra Frade; Defendant/appellant: Bruce St Clair; Defendant/appellant: Gheko Films SL; Defendant/appellant: Gheko Films Sur SL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office (detailed Assessment of Costs)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitor Retainer, Costs Assessment, Scope of Retainer, Enforceability of Cfas
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitor Retainer Costs Assessment Scope of Retainer Enforceability of Cfas

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Radford

Claimant/respondent

The Michael Radford Partnership

Claimant/respondent

Alejendra Frade

Defendant/appellant

Bruce St Clair

Defendant/appellant

Gheko Films SL

Defendant/appellant

Gheko Films Sur SL

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office (detailed Assessment of Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction and scope of the solicitors' Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA)
  2. 2 Whether the CFA superseded the prior conventional retainer
  3. 3 Whether solicitors and counsel can recover costs for work outside the CFA's scope

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA between the defendants and their solicitors was limited in scope to procedural applications existing or contemplated at the time of agreement, and did not extend to substantive defence or later applications for summary judgment. Upon entering into the CFA, the prior conventional retainer was superseded in its entirety. No enforceable retainer existed for work outside the CFA's scope after its exhaustion, and any implied retainer would have been a CFA, which was unenforceable for lack of writing under s.58(3)(a) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Counsel's fees were likewise not recoverable for work outside the CFA's scope or for clients not named in the CFA.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The appeals against the Costs Judge's rulings are dismissed.
  • No order for recovery of solicitors' or counsel's fees for work outside the scope of the CFA after 23 May 2012.