Louise Michelle Reeves v Simon Kevin Frain & Anor

Louise Michelle Reeves v Simon Kevin Frain & Anor

The DBAs in question are unenforceable due to failure to comply with statutory requirements: they do not provide for payment solely out of sums recovered, improperly treat counsel's fees as expenses, and lack netting off for inter partes recovery. Material breaches cannot be cured by severance or hybrid retainer arguments. Any purported private retainer for work covered by the DBA is void or voidable due to misrepresentation or mistake.

Parties
Claimant: Louise Michelle Reeves; Second Defendant: Simon Kevin Frain; Fourth Defendant: Mark Ryan McKinnon
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 March 2025
Procedural Posture
Probate/costs Assessment / Preliminary Issues in Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
DBAs held unenforceable; private retainer claim for work covered by DBA fails.
Legal Topics
Damages Based Agreements, Enforceability of Retainers, Materiality of Statutory Breach, Severance of Contractual Terms, Champerty, Public Policy
Probate Costs Contract Statutory Interpretation Damages Based Agreements Enforceability of Retainers Materiality of Statutory Breach Severance of Contractual Terms +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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louise Michelle Reeves

Claimant

Simon Kevin Frain

Second Defendant

Mark Ryan McKinnon

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate/costs Assessment / Preliminary Issues in Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the DBAs comply with statutory requirements and are enforceable
  2. 2 Whether counsel's fees can be charged as expenses under a DBA
  3. 3 Whether payment under the DBA must be net of inter partes recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The DBAs in question are unenforceable due to failure to comply with statutory requirements: they do not provide for payment solely out of sums recovered, improperly treat counsel's fees as expenses, and lack netting off for inter partes recovery. Material breaches cannot be cured by severance or hybrid retainer arguments. Any purported private retainer for work covered by the DBA is void or voidable due to misrepresentation or mistake.

Court Disposition

DBAs held unenforceable; private retainer claim for work covered by DBA fails.

Orders

  • Parts 15 and 16 of Second Defendant’s Bill and Parts 2 and 3 of Fourth Defendant’s Bill to be assessed at nil, subject to further argument.
  • Further argument on corollary issues reserved for another date.