Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd

Tankard v John Fredricks Plastics Ltd

None of the solicitors in the three cases had an interest within regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) that required disclosure, as no reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would think that the solicitor's advice might be affected by the ALP scheme benefits. Therefore, the CFAs are enforceable and the claimants are entitled to recover costs.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Kier Tankard; Respondent/defendant: John Fredricks Plastics Limited; Appellant/defendant: Fawcett Old Limited; Appellant/defendant: Michael Jane Hair & Beauty; Respondent/claimant: Yvonne Hibberd; Appellant/claimant: Mark Jones; Respondent/defendant: Karl Joseph Attrill; Intervenor: The Law Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on First Appeal From District Judges and a Costs Judge
Outcome
Appeals allowed in Jones and Tankard; appeal dismissed in Hibberd; CFAs held enforceable in all three cases.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitor Disclosure Obligations, After the Event Insurance, Costs Recovery, Consumer Protection
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitor Disclosure Obligations After the Event Insurance Costs Recovery Consumer Protection

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kier Tankard

Appellant/claimant

John Fredricks Plastics Limited

Respondent/defendant

Fawcett Old Limited

Appellant/defendant

Michael Jane Hair & Beauty

Appellant/defendant

Yvonne Hibberd

Respondent/claimant

Mark Jones

Appellant/claimant

Karl Joseph Attrill

Respondent/defendant

The Law Society

Intervenor

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on First Appeal From District Judges and a Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes an 'interest' under regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000?
  2. 2 Did the solicitors in these cases have an interest requiring disclosure to their clients?
  3. 3 What is the proper test for determining the existence of an interest?

Ratio Decidendi

None of the solicitors in the three cases had an interest within regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) that required disclosure, as no reasonable person with knowledge of the facts would think that the solicitor's advice might be affected by the ALP scheme benefits. Therefore, the CFAs are enforceable and the claimants are entitled to recover costs.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in Jones and Tankard; appeal dismissed in Hibberd; CFAs held enforceable in all three cases.

Orders

  • In Hibberd, the defendants' appeal is dismissed; the CFA is enforceable and costs are payable as agreed.
  • In Jones, the solicitors' appeal is allowed; the CFA is enforceable and costs are payable as agreed.