Reeves v Frain & Ors [2025] EWHC 185 (SCCO) (31 January 2025)

Reeves v Frain & Ors [2025] EWHC 185 (SCCO) (31 January 2025)

The DBAs in question are unenforceable because they do not comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, specifically by failing to provide for payment only out of sums actually recovered in the proceedings. The financial benefit obtained by the Defendants was contingent and not an ascertained sum recovered, contrary to the requirements of the Regulations. This breach is material and cannot be cured by severance or by reference to a conventional retainer. As a result, the Defendants have no enforceable claim for costs under the DBAs.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 185 (SCCO)
Parties
Claimant: Louise Michelle Reeves; Second Defendant: Simon Kevin Frain (aka Simon Kevin Reeves aka Bill Reeves); Fourth Defendant: Mark Ryan McKinnon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (high Court, Scco) / Preliminary Issues in Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
DBAs unenforceable; Defendants' claims for costs under the DBAs fail.
Legal Topics
Damages Based Agreements, Enforceability of Retainers, Statutory Interpretation, Severance of Contractual Terms, Materiality of Breach, Indemnity Costs, Champerty and Public Policy
Civil Procedure Costs Law Probate Damages Based Agreements Enforceability of Retainers Statutory Interpretation Severance of Contractual Terms Materiality of Breach +2 more

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Michelle Reeves

Claimant

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

Second Defendant

Mark Ryan McKinnon

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (high Court, Scco) / Preliminary Issues in Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants' Damages Based Agreements (DBAs) comply with the statutory and regulatory requirements for enforceability under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013;
  2. 2 Whether the DBAs are unenforceable due to failure to provide for payment only out of sums recovered;
  3. 3 Whether counsel's fees can be charged as expenses in addition to the DBA payment;

Ratio Decidendi

The DBAs in question are unenforceable because they do not comply with the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, specifically by failing to provide for payment only out of sums actually recovered in the proceedings. The financial benefit obtained by the Defendants was contingent and not an ascertained sum recovered, contrary to the requirements of the Regulations. This breach is material and cannot be cured by severance or by reference to a conventional retainer. As a result, the Defendants have no enforceable claim for costs under the DBAs.

Court Disposition

DBAs unenforceable; Defendants' claims for costs under the DBAs fail.

Orders

  • Defendants' claims for costs under the Damages Based Agreements are dismissed.
  • No enforceable claim for costs arises under the DBAs.