Glaser & Anor v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) (12 October 2023)

Glaser & Anor v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB) (12 October 2023)

The payment term requiring full, non-refundable advance payment for barristers' services, regardless of whether the trial proceeded, was unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it created a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. The term fell within the grey list and was not protected by the safe harbour. As a result, the claimants could not rely on the payment term, and there was no contractual or quantum meruit basis for recovery of fees.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 2539 (KB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Glaser KC; Claimant/respondent: Victoria Miller; Defendant/appellant: Katharine Jane Atay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim for fees dismissed.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract Terms, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Quantum Meruit, Legal Fees, Public Access Barristers
Contract Law Consumer Law Unfair Contract Terms Consumer Rights Act 2015 Quantum Meruit Legal Fees Public Access Barristers

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

Parties

Michael Glaser KC

Claimant/respondent

Victoria Miller

Claimant/respondent

Katharine Jane Atay

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the payment term in the barristers' retainer agreement is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the claimants are entitled to payment of fees or quantum meruit after the adjournment of trial and termination of instructions

Ratio Decidendi

The payment term requiring full, non-refundable advance payment for barristers' services, regardless of whether the trial proceeded, was unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it created a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. The term fell within the grey list and was not protected by the safe harbour. As a result, the claimants could not rely on the payment term, and there was no contractual or quantum meruit basis for recovery of fees.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim for fees dismissed.

Orders

  • The claim for fees that was the subject of this appeal is dismissed.