Thomas v Butler & Ors (t/a Worthingtons Solicitors)

Thomas v Butler & Ors (t/a Worthingtons Solicitors)

Worthingtons failed to comply with the Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code by not adequately investigating or advising on legal expenses insurance and not acting under a CFA as instructed, resulting in costs being unreasonably incurred and disallowed.

Parties
Claimant: William Thomas; Defendants: Butler and Others T/A Worthingtons Solicitors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment Under Solicitors Act 1974 Section 70 / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Worthingtons’ bills assessed at nil; sums paid by Mr Thomas to be repaid with interest; Worthingtons to pay Mr Thomas’ costs of the reference.
Legal Topics
Solicitor Client Costs, Retainer Validity, Legal Expenses Insurance, Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Costs Solicitor Client Costs Retainer Validity Legal Expenses Insurance Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Thomas

Claimant

Butler and Others T/A Worthingtons Solicitors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment Under Solicitors Act 1974 Section 70 / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Worthingtons’ retainer was invalid due to failure to advise claimant he was not being represented by a solicitor
  2. 2 Whether documentation misrepresented fee earner’s qualification
  3. 3 Whether Worthingtons failed to investigate or advise on legal expenses insurance

Ratio Decidendi

Worthingtons failed to comply with the Solicitors Costs Information and Client Care Code by not adequately investigating or advising on legal expenses insurance and not acting under a CFA as instructed, resulting in costs being unreasonably incurred and disallowed.

Court Disposition

Worthingtons’ bills assessed at nil; sums paid by Mr Thomas to be repaid with interest; Worthingtons to pay Mr Thomas’ costs of the reference.

Orders

  • Worthingtons’ bills assessed at nil
  • Sum standing to Mr Thomas’ credit in the cash account to be repaid with interest