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 court held that the retainer from 6 September 2017 was a new contract wholly governed by a conditional fee arrangement that failed to comply with statutory requirements, rendering it unenforceable. Severance was not available because removing the offending provisions would fundamentally alter the character of the contract. Quantum meruit was not available due to overriding public policy. All sums paid under the unenforceable retainer must be returned to the client.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 2054 (QB)
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 Costs Assessment Under 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, Public Policy in Legal Funding
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 3
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 Costs Assessment Under Solicitors Act 1974 / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unenforceable provisions in a solicitor's retainer can be severed to leave an enforceable contract for unconditional fees
  2. 2 Whether a solicitor can recover on a quantum meruit basis for work done under an unenforceable retainer
  3. 3 Whether sums paid under an unenforceable retainer must be returned to the client

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the retainer from 6 September 2017 was a new contract wholly governed by a conditional fee arrangement that failed to comply with statutory requirements, rendering it unenforceable. Severance was not available because removing the offending provisions would fundamentally alter the character of the contract. Quantum meruit was not available due to overriding public policy. All sums paid under the unenforceable retainer must be returned to the client.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in its entirety.
  • The Appellant must return all sums paid under the unenforceable retainer for work after 6 September 2017.