Michael Glaser KC & Anor v Katharine Jane Atay

Michael Glaser KC & Anor v Katharine Jane Atay

The Payment Term, which required the consumer to pay the full fee even if the hearing was adjourned or did not proceed for reasons beyond the consumer's control, was unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It caused a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer, was not protected from assessment for fairness, and fell within the grey list. Upon its removal, the contract was frustrated before further instalments fell due, so no further sums were payable and no quantum meruit or restitutionary claim arose.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Glaser KC; Claimant/appellant: Victoria Miller; Defendant/respondent: Katharine Jane Atay
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract Terms, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Quantum Meruit, Frustration of Contract, Legal Services Contracts
Contract Law Consumer Protection Unfair Contract Terms Consumer Rights Act 2015 Quantum Meruit Frustration of Contract Legal Services Contracts

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Glaser KC

Claimant/appellant

Victoria Miller

Claimant/appellant

Katharine Jane Atay

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Payment Term in barristers' direct access 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 in Schedule 2 to the Act
  3. 3 Whether the Payment Term is protected from assessment for fairness under 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 or did not proceed for reasons beyond the consumer's control, was unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. It caused a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer, was not protected from assessment for fairness, and fell within the grey list. Upon its removal, the contract was frustrated before further instalments fell due, so no further sums were payable and no quantum meruit or restitutionary claim arose.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; no further sums due under the First Contracts beyond sums already paid.
  • No entitlement to quantum meruit or restitutionary payment for work not performed.