Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 2183 (Ch) (08 August 2019)

Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 2183 (Ch) (08 August 2019)

The court held that the solicitors and barristers, although having a financial interest in the outcome due to unpaid fees, did not cross the line from acting as legal representatives to being 'real parties' or funders of the litigation. Their interest was a direct consequence of their professional role and the deferred payment arrangements, which are protected by public policy to ensure access to justice. There was no evidence of conduct outside the ordinary scope of legal representation or any improper or champertous arrangement. Accordingly, it was not just to make a non-party costs order against them.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2183 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Peter Willers; Defendant (executor of the Will of Albert Gubay, Deceased): Elena Joyce; Defendant (executor of the Will of Albert Gubay, Deceased): John Nugent; Defendant (costs Respondent): De Cruz Solicitors (A Firm); Defendant (costs Respondent): De Cruz Solicitors Limited; Defendant (costs Respondent): Hugo Page QC; Defendant (costs Respondent): Adam Chichester-Clark
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 August 2019
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Post Trial Costs Application (non Party Costs Order)
Outcome
Application for non-party costs order against the Costs Respondents dismissed.
Legal Topics
Non Party Costs Orders, Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitor and Barrister Liability for Costs, Access to Justice, Champerty
Civil Procedure Costs Non Party Costs Orders Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitor and Barrister Liability for Costs Access to Justice Champerty

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Willers

Claimant

Elena Joyce

Defendant (executor of the Will of Albert Gubay, Deceased)

John Nugent

Defendant (executor of the Will of Albert Gubay, Deceased)

De Cruz Solicitors (A Firm)

Defendant (costs Respondent)

De Cruz Solicitors Limited

Defendant (costs Respondent)

Hugo Page QC

Defendant (costs Respondent)

Adam Chichester-Clark

Defendant (costs Respondent)

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division Business List (ch D) / Post Trial Costs Application (non Party Costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether solicitors and barristers acting for an impecunious claimant under deferred or conditional fee arrangements can be made subject to a non-party costs order for the opposing party's costs after the claimant's claim fails.
  2. 2 Whether the legal advisers' financial interest in the outcome of the litigation, including unpaid fees from previous litigation, makes them 'real parties' to the claim for the purposes of a non-party costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the arrangements between the claimant and his legal team were champertous or otherwise improper.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the solicitors and barristers, although having a financial interest in the outcome due to unpaid fees, did not cross the line from acting as legal representatives to being 'real parties' or funders of the litigation. Their interest was a direct consequence of their professional role and the deferred payment arrangements, which are protected by public policy to ensure access to justice. There was no evidence of conduct outside the ordinary scope of legal representation or any improper or champertous arrangement. Accordingly, it was not just to make a non-party costs order against them.

Court Disposition

Application for non-party costs order against the Costs Respondents dismissed.

Orders

  • No non-party costs order made against De Cruz Solicitors (A Firm), De Cruz Solicitors Limited, Hugo Page QC, or Adam Chichester-Clark.
  • Costs remain payable by Mr Willers as previously ordered.