Ibbertson v MFI & Ors

Ibbertson v MFI & Ors

The CFA is unenforceable because there was no full and clear disclosure of the solicitors' interest in recommending the insurance policy, as required by the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 and interpreted in Tankard. The CFA expressly stated there was no interest, and the limited disclosure in correspondence was inadequate. The breach was material and not de minimis. Additionally, it was unreasonable for the Claimant to instruct London solicitors in the absence of evidence justifying not using local solicitors.

Parties
Claimant: Nicola Ibbertson; 1st Defendant: Peter Sampson; 2nd Defendant: MFI & Howdens Joinery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Personal Injury / Ruling on Enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreement and Reasonableness of Instructing London Solicitors
Outcome
CFA declared unenforceable; if assessment were to proceed, only local (Southampton area) rates would be allowed for costs.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Disclosure of Interest, Consumer Protection, Reasonableness of Solicitor Choice
Civil Procedure Costs Law Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements Disclosure of Interest Consumer Protection Reasonableness of Solicitor Choice

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicola Ibbertson

Claimant

Peter Sampson

1st Defendant

MFI & Howdens Joinery

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Personal Injury / Ruling on Enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreement and Reasonableness of Instructing London Solicitors

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) is enforceable given alleged non-compliance with disclosure requirements under the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable for the Claimant to instruct London solicitors rather than local solicitors

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA is unenforceable because there was no full and clear disclosure of the solicitors' interest in recommending the insurance policy, as required by the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 and interpreted in Tankard. The CFA expressly stated there was no interest, and the limited disclosure in correspondence was inadequate. The breach was material and not de minimis. Additionally, it was unreasonable for the Claimant to instruct London solicitors in the absence of evidence justifying not using local solicitors.

Court Disposition

CFA declared unenforceable; if assessment were to proceed, only local (Southampton area) rates would be allowed for costs.

Orders

  • The Conditional Fee Agreement dated 21 January 2005 is unenforceable.
  • If costs assessment were to proceed, hourly rates allowed will be those relevant to solicitors based in the Southampton area.