Warren v Hill Dickinson LLP [2018] EWHC 3322 (QB) (30 November 2018)

Warren v Hill Dickinson LLP [2018] EWHC 3322 (QB) (30 November 2018)

The CFAs were capable of valid novation to Hill Dickinson even after PSB Law ceased to practise, and Mr Warren 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 (QB)
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 Decision of Senior Courts Costs Office (master Leonard)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Assignment and Novation of Contracts, Informed Consent in Legal Representation, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Legal Costs Contract Law Conditional Fee Agreements Assignment and Novation of Contracts Informed Consent in Legal Representation 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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frank Warren

Claimant / Appellant

Hill Dickinson LLP

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From Decision of Senior Courts Costs Office (master Leonard)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conditional fee agreements (CFAs) were capable of valid assignment or novation after original law firm ceased to practise
  2. 2 Whether informed consent was required and obtained for the transfer of CFAs
  3. 3 Whether the master's reliance on Budana v Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust was correct

Ratio Decidendi

The CFAs were capable of valid novation to Hill Dickinson even after PSB Law ceased to practise, and Mr Warren 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.