Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 119 (07 February 2018)

Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 119 (07 February 2018)

The CFA superseded the original conventional retainer, and any implied retainer for work outside the CFA was itself a conditional fee agreement, unenforceable for want of writing. The deed of rectification could not retrospectively increase the respondents' liability after the costs order. Therefore, the appellants could not recover fees for work done after 23 May 2012.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 119
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Radford; Claimant/respondent: The Michael Radford Partnership; Defendant/appellant: Alejandra Frade; Defendant/appellant: Bruce St Clair; Defendant/appellant: Gheko Films SL; Defendant/appellant: Gheko Films Sur SL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal, Second Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Indemnity Principle, Retainer Agreements, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Indemnity Principle Retainer Agreements Costs Assessment

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Radford

Claimant/respondent

The Michael Radford Partnership

Claimant/respondent

Alejandra Frade

Defendant/appellant

Bruce St Clair

Defendant/appellant

Gheko Films SL

Defendant/appellant

Gheko Films Sur SL

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal, Second Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitors and counsel could recover fees for work done after 23 May 2012 not covered by the CFA
  2. 2 Whether an implied conventional retainer or quantum meruit applied for work outside the CFA
  3. 3 Whether a deed of rectification could retrospectively extend liability for counsel's fees to corporate defendants after the costs order

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA superseded the original conventional retainer, and any implied retainer for work outside the CFA was itself a conditional fee agreement, unenforceable for want of writing. The deed of rectification could not retrospectively increase the respondents' liability after the costs order. Therefore, the appellants could not recover fees for work done after 23 May 2012.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed