Hughes v George Major Skip Hire Ltd & Anor

Hughes v George Major Skip Hire Ltd & Anor

The conditional fee agreement failed to specify with sufficient clarity the postponement element of the success fee, constituting a breach of regulation 3(1)(b). However, the breach was not material as it did not adversely affect the protection afforded to the client or the proper administration of justice, given the mutual understanding that no postponement charge would be made. Therefore, the agreement is not unenforceable by reason of this breach.

Parties
Claimant: Leana Hughes; First Defendant: George Major Skip Hire Limited; Second Defendant: Philip Hughes
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Conditional fee agreement not unenforceable; breach not material.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fee, Regulation Compliance, Material Breach
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fee Regulation Compliance Material Breach

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leana Hughes

Claimant

George Major Skip Hire Limited

First Defendant

Philip Hughes

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditional fee agreement is unenforceable due to failure to specify the postponement element of the success fee as required by regulation 3(1)(b) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether any breach of regulation 3(1)(b) is material and affects enforceability
  3. 3 Whether there was compliance with regulation 4 regarding explanation to the client

Ratio Decidendi

The conditional fee agreement failed to specify with sufficient clarity the postponement element of the success fee, constituting a breach of regulation 3(1)(b). However, the breach was not material as it did not adversely affect the protection afforded to the client or the proper administration of justice, given the mutual understanding that no postponement charge would be made. Therefore, the agreement is not unenforceable by reason of this breach.

Court Disposition

Conditional fee agreement not unenforceable; breach not material.

Orders

  • Detailed assessment to proceed on the basis that the conditional fee agreement is enforceable.
  • Claimant not entitled to recover costs incurred before the conditional fee agreement was entered into.