Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors

Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors

The appeal was dismissed because the work done by solicitors and counsel after 23 May 2012 was not covered by an enforceable retainer. The CFA superseded the conventional retainer, and any implied retainer was itself a CFA, unenforceable for want of writing. The deed of rectification executed after the costs order could not increase the respondents' liability as paying parties.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Radford; Claimant/respondent: The Michael Radford Partnership; Defendant/appellant: Alejandra Frade; Defendant/appellant: Bruce St Clair; Defendant/appellant: Gheko Films SL; Defendant/appellant: Gheko Films Sur SL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Indemnity Principle, Retainer Agreements, Costs Assessment
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Indemnity Principle Retainer Agreements 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Radford

Claimant/respondent

The Michael Radford Partnership

Claimant/respondent

Alejandra Frade

Defendant/appellant

Bruce St Clair

Defendant/appellant

Gheko Films SL

Defendant/appellant

Gheko Films Sur SL

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether work done by solicitors and counsel after 23 May 2012 was subject to an enforceable retainer and recoverable as costs
  2. 2 Whether a deed of rectification executed after the costs order could render corporate defendants liable for counsel's fees and thus recoverable from the claimants
  3. 3 Whether implied or quantum meruit retainers arose for work outside the scope of the CFA

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the work done by solicitors and counsel after 23 May 2012 was not covered by an enforceable retainer. The CFA superseded the conventional retainer, and any implied retainer was itself a CFA, unenforceable for want of writing. The deed of rectification executed after the costs order could not increase the respondents' liability as paying parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No recovery of solicitors' or counsel's fees for work done after 23 May 2012 from the respondents
  • No increase in respondents' liability under the costs order by virtue of the deed of rectification