Malone v Birmingham Community NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1376 (19 June 2018)
The CFA was not limited to a claim against the Home Office/Ministry of Justice. Both textual and contextual considerations indicate that the reference to 'Home Office' was descriptive of the instructions received, not prescriptive of the work to be done. The CFA covered all work in relation to the claim, including against Birmingham Community NHS Trust.
- Citation
- [2018] EWCA Civ 1376
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Drew Malone; Respondent/defendant: Birmingham Community NHS Trust
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 19 June 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Costs Assessment
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs Recovery, Contract Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Drew Malone
Appellant/claimant
Birmingham Community NHS Trust
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Costs Assessment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the CFA was limited to proceedings against the only potential defendant named in the CFA
- 2 Proper construction of the CFA in the context of uncertain defendant identity
Ratio Decidendi
The CFA was not limited to a claim against the Home Office/Ministry of Justice. Both textual and contextual considerations indicate that the reference to 'Home Office' was descriptive of the instructions received, not prescriptive of the work to be done. The CFA covered all work in relation to the claim, including against Birmingham Community NHS Trust.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Costs are recoverable under the CFA for work done against Birmingham Community NHS Trust.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment