Diag Human SE & Anor v Volterra Fietta (A Firm) [2022] EWHC 2054 (QB) (29 July 2022)

Diag Human SE & Anor v Volterra Fietta (A Firm) [2022] EWHC 2054 (QB) (29 July 2022)

The retainer from 6 September 2017 was a single, indivisible agreement rendered wholly unenforceable by non-compliance with statutory requirements for CFAs. Severance was not available because removing the offending provisions would fundamentally alter the contract's character. Public policy and authority preclude recovery by the solicitor, whether by severance, quantum meruit, or restitution. Sums paid under the unenforceable retainer must be repaid to the client.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2054
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Diag Human SE; Respondent/claimant: Mr Josef Stava; Appellant/defendant: Volterra Fietta (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Senior Courts Costs Office Under the Solicitors Act 1974 / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Champerty and Maintenance, Severance of Contract, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Solicitors' Remuneration
Legal Profession Contract Law Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Champerty and Maintenance Severance of Contract Quantum Meruit Unjust Enrichment +1 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diag Human SE

Respondent/claimant

Mr Josef Stava

Respondent/claimant

Volterra Fietta (A Firm)

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Senior Courts Costs Office Under the Solicitors Act 1974 / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an unenforceable conditional fee agreement (CFA) can be severed to allow recovery of unconditional fees
  2. 2 Whether a quantum meruit or restitutionary claim is available to a solicitor under an unenforceable CFA
  3. 3 Whether sums paid under an unenforceable CFA must be repaid to the client

Ratio Decidendi

The retainer from 6 September 2017 was a single, indivisible agreement rendered wholly unenforceable by non-compliance with statutory requirements for CFAs. Severance was not available because removing the offending provisions would fundamentally alter the contract's character. Public policy and authority preclude recovery by the solicitor, whether by severance, quantum meruit, or restitution. Sums paid under the unenforceable retainer must be repaid to the client.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No severance of the retainer permitted; the entire agreement is unenforceable.
  • No entitlement to quantum meruit or restitution for work done under the unenforceable retainer.