Khans Solicitors v Chifuntwe & Anor

Khans Solicitors v Chifuntwe & Anor

There was no evidence of collusion or intent to cheat by Mr Chifuntwe or SSHD; the compromise was not underhand, and Khans were aware of the settlement. The rule in Re Margetson & Jones did not apply. The compromise was valid and binding, and Khans were not entitled to a charging order or lien over the costs.

Parties
Claimant: Khans Solicitors; First Defendant: Mr Chama Chifuntwe; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for the Home Department
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 February 2012
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (costs Proceedings) / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Declarations and Payment Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Solicitor's Lien, Compromise of Costs, Charging Order, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Client Solicitor Relationship
Civil Procedure Costs Law Solicitor's Lien Compromise of Costs Charging Order Detailed Assessment of Costs Client Solicitor Relationship

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Khans Solicitors

Claimant

Mr Chama Chifuntwe

First Defendant

Secretary of State for the Home Department

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (costs Proceedings) / Judgment After Hearing of Application for Declarations and Payment Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a client can compromise costs directly with the paying party after terminating the solicitor's retainer
  2. 2 Whether the compromise was a 'cheat' intended to deprive the solicitor of costs
  3. 3 Whether the solicitor is entitled to a charging order or lien over the costs

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence of collusion or intent to cheat by Mr Chifuntwe or SSHD; the compromise was not underhand, and Khans were aware of the settlement. The rule in Re Margetson & Jones did not apply. The compromise was valid and binding, and Khans were not entitled to a charging order or lien over the costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Declarations sought by Khans refused
  • Order for payment of £6,000 refused