Blankley v Central Manchester And Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 18 (27 January 2015)

Blankley v Central Manchester And Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 18 (27 January 2015)

Supervening incapacity of the claimant did not frustrate or terminate the conditional fee agreement. The contract contemplated the possibility of fluctuating capacity, and instructions could be given by a deputy or litigation friend. The inability to give instructions personally did not render the contract impossible to perform, but merely caused a delay pending appointment of a deputy. The CFA was not frustrated and remained in force.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 18
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Diann Blankley (by her litigation friend Andrew Cusworth); Defendant/appellant: Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Frustration of Contract, Conditional Fee Agreements, Authority of Solicitors, Mental Incapacity and Litigation, Agency Law
Contract Law Civil Procedure Mental Capacity Frustration of Contract Conditional Fee Agreements Authority of Solicitors Mental Incapacity and Litigation Agency Law

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diann Blankley (by her litigation friend Andrew Cusworth)

Claimant/respondent

Central Manchester and Manchester Children's University Hospitals NHS Trust

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a conditional fee agreement (CFA) is automatically terminated by frustration when a claimant loses mental capacity after entering into the CFA
  2. 2 Whether the retainer between solicitor and client survives supervening incapacity of the client

Ratio Decidendi

Supervening incapacity of the claimant did not frustrate or terminate the conditional fee agreement. The contract contemplated the possibility of fluctuating capacity, and instructions could be given by a deputy or litigation friend. The inability to give instructions personally did not render the contract impossible to perform, but merely caused a delay pending appointment of a deputy. The CFA was not frustrated and remained in force.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by the defendant is dismissed.