RHYS EDWARDS & Ors v SLATER AND GORDON UK LIMITED

RHYS EDWARDS & Ors v SLATER AND GORDON UK LIMITED

The court has power to order disclosure in Part 8 SOCAs under CPR Part 31; the CLL indemnity is not unlawful insurance nor champertous; security for costs against CLL is not justified; the Defendant must answer the Part 18 requests regarding secret commissions; and the Defendant's appeals are dismissed while the Claimant's appeal in Raubenheimer is allowed.

Parties
Claimants/respondents: Rhys Edwards and 9 Others (Abdesalam; Watson; Bateman; Riley; Roy; Finney; Hoskins; Piper); Defendant/appellant: Slater and Gordon UK Limited; Claimant/appellant: Wayne Raubenheimer; Defendant/respondent: Slater and Gordon UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Costs Office to High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Defendant's appeal dismissed; Claimant's appeal in Raubenheimer allowed.
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Costs Assessment, Disclosure in Part 8 Proceedings, Unlawful Insurance, Champerty, Security for Costs, Fiduciary Duties, Informed Consent, Secret Commissions
Civil Procedure Costs Law Contract Law Consumer Protection Solicitor Client Costs Assessment Disclosure in Part 8 Proceedings Unlawful Insurance Champerty +4 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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rhys Edwards and 9 Others (Abdesalam; Watson; Bateman; Riley; Roy; Finney; Hoskins; Piper)

Claimants/respondents

Slater and Gordon UK Limited

Defendant/appellant

Wayne Raubenheimer

Claimant/appellant

Slater and Gordon UK Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Supreme Court Costs Office to High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has power to order disclosure in Part 8 claims for solicitor-own client assessments (SOCAs)
  2. 2 Whether the indemnity provided by CLL constitutes unlawful insurance or is champertous
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against CLL

Ratio Decidendi

The court has power to order disclosure in Part 8 SOCAs under CPR Part 31; the CLL indemnity is not unlawful insurance nor champertous; security for costs against CLL is not justified; the Defendant must answer the Part 18 requests regarding secret commissions; and the Defendant's appeals are dismissed while the Claimant's appeal in Raubenheimer is allowed.

Court Disposition

Defendant's appeal dismissed; Claimant's appeal in Raubenheimer allowed.

Orders

  • Defendant to provide disclosure as ordered by the Costs Judge.
  • Defendant to answer Part 18 requests regarding secret commissions.