Glaser & Anor v Atay [2024] EWCA Civ 1111 (03 October 2024)

Glaser & Anor v Atay [2024] EWCA Civ 1111 (03 October 2024)

The Payment Term, which required the consumer to pay the full fee even if the hearing was adjourned and services were not supplied, is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it causes a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and is not protected by s.64(1)(b); no quantum meruit is available once the unfair term is struck out.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 1111
Parties
Claimant / Appellant: Michael Glaser KC; Claimant / Appellant: Victoria Miller; Defendant / Respondent: Katharine Jane Atay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (second Appeal)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract Terms, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Quantum Meruit, Legal Fees, Public Access Scheme, Grey List (schedule 2), Assessment of Fairness
Contract Law Consumer Law Unfair Contract Terms Consumer Rights Act 2015 Quantum Meruit Legal Fees Public Access Scheme Grey List (schedule 2) +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Glaser KC

Claimant / Appellant

Victoria Miller

Claimant / Appellant

Katharine Jane Atay

Defendant / Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (second Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Payment Term in counsel's contracts is unfair under Part 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015
  2. 2 Whether the Payment Term falls within paragraph 5 of the grey list (Schedule 2)
  3. 3 Whether the Payment Term is protected from fairness assessment by s.64(1)(b) of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Payment Term, which required the consumer to pay the full fee even if the hearing was adjourned and services were not supplied, is unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 as it causes a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer and is not protected by s.64(1)(b); no quantum meruit is available once the unfair term is struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal by Mr Glaser and Ms Miller is dismissed.
  • The Payment Term is declared unfair and not binding on Mrs Atay.