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 identified at the time of agreement and did not extend to substantive defence or later applications such as summary judgment. Upon entering into the CFA, the prior conventional retainer was superseded and did not survive for work outside the CFA's scope. No enforceable retainer existed after the CFA was exhausted, and any implied retainer would have been a CFA, which was not reduced to writing and thus unenforceable. Counsel's CFA did not cover the corporate defendants, so their fees are not recoverable.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1600 (QB)
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 / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitor Retainer, Costs Assessment, Scope of Retainer, Success Fees
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitor Retainer Costs Assessment Scope of Retainer Success Fees

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 13 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 / Judgment on Appeal From Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the true scope of the solicitors' CFA with the defendants?
  2. 2 Did the CFA supersede the prior conventional retainer?
  3. 3 Are the defendants liable for solicitors' and counsel's fees for work outside the CFA scope?

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA between the defendants and their solicitors was limited in scope to procedural applications identified at the time of agreement and did not extend to substantive defence or later applications such as summary judgment. Upon entering into the CFA, the prior conventional retainer was superseded and did not survive for work outside the CFA's scope. No enforceable retainer existed after the CFA was exhausted, and any implied retainer would have been a CFA, which was not reduced to writing and thus unenforceable. Counsel's CFA did not cover the corporate defendants, so their fees are not recoverable.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • The Costs Judge's rulings are upheld.
  • Defendants cannot recover costs for work outside the CFA scope after 23 May 2012.