Reeves v Frain (Aka Reeves) & Anor [2025] EWHC 2311 (KB) (10 September 2025)

Reeves v Frain (Aka Reeves) & Anor [2025] EWHC 2311 (KB) (10 September 2025)

The DBAs in question are unenforceable because they do not comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, which require that payment to legal representatives be limited to sums recovered or damages awarded during the proceedings. The Regulations provide a narrower and exhaustive definition of 'payment' than the enabling Act, and do not permit remuneration from contingent rights, assets, or future benefits. Strict compliance with the statutory scheme is required, and any non-compliance renders the DBA unenforceable, regardless of the consequences for the solicitors or clients.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 2311 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Louise Michelle Reeves; Defendant/appellant: Simon Kevin Frain (aka Simon Kevin Reeves aka Bill Reeves); Defendant/appellant: Mark Ryan McKinnon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Appeal / High Court Appeal From Costs Judge
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages Based Agreements, Champerty, Statutory Interpretation, Enforceability of Legal Funding Agreements, Probate Disputes
Civil Procedure Costs Probate Damages Based Agreements Champerty Statutory Interpretation Enforceability of Legal Funding Agreements Probate Disputes

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Michelle Reeves

Claimant/respondent

Simon Kevin Frain (aka Simon Kevin Reeves aka Bill Reeves)

Defendant/appellant

Mark Ryan McKinnon

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / High Court Appeal From Costs Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payment under a DBA is permitted only out of sums recovered by the client from another party under the relevant statutory framework
  2. 2 Whether the 'payment' under a DBA must include counsel's fees which may not be charged as expenses

Ratio Decidendi

The DBAs in question are unenforceable because they do not comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, which require that payment to legal representatives be limited to sums recovered or damages awarded during the proceedings. The Regulations provide a narrower and exhaustive definition of 'payment' than the enabling Act, and do not permit remuneration from contingent rights, assets, or future benefits. Strict compliance with the statutory scheme is required, and any non-compliance renders the DBA unenforceable, regardless of the consequences for the solicitors or clients.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The DBAs are declared unenforceable.