Warren v Hill Dickinson LLP [2018] EWHC 3322 (QB) (30 November 2018)
The CFAs were capable of novation despite the original firm's cessation of practice; the claimant gave full and informed consent to the transfer; the master's reliance on Budana was correct; there was no error of law or fact justifying permission to appeal.
- Citation
- [2018] EWHC 3322
- Parties
- Claimant / Appellant: Frank Warren; Defendant / Respondent: Hill Dickinson LLP
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 30 November 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office Decision
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Fee Agreements, Assignment and Novation of Contracts, Informed Consent, Legal Costs Assessment
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Frank Warren
Claimant / Appellant
Hill Dickinson LLP
Defendant / Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Senior Courts Costs Office Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether conditional fee agreements (CFAs) were capable of valid assignment or novation after the original law firm ceased to practise
- 2 Whether the claimant gave informed consent to the transfer of the CFAs
- 3 Whether the master's reliance on Budana v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust was correct
Ratio Decidendi
The CFAs were capable of novation despite the original firm's cessation of practice; the claimant gave full and informed consent to the transfer; the master's reliance on Budana was correct; there was no error of law or fact justifying permission to appeal.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Permission to appeal is refused.
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