Pentecost v John [2015] EWHC 1970 (QB) (10 July 2015)

Pentecost v John [2015] EWHC 1970 (QB) (10 July 2015)

The second CCFA applied retrospectively and incorporated the pre-existing written statement of the success fee, thus complying with section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; the agreement was enforceable and the indemnity principle did not bar recovery of costs.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1970 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Henry Andrew Pentecost; Defendant: Anthony Christopher John
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Assessment Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Indemnity Principle, Retrospective Contracts, Enforceability of Costs Agreements
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Indemnity Principle Retrospective Contracts Enforceability of Costs Agreements

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

Parties

Henry Andrew Pentecost

Claimant

Anthony Christopher John

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Assessment Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second CCFA was unenforceable for failure to state the success fee percentage under section 58(4) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether the second CCFA was a novation or a variation
  3. 3 Whether the indemnity principle precluded recovery of costs after 2 July 2009

Ratio Decidendi

The second CCFA applied retrospectively and incorporated the pre-existing written statement of the success fee, thus complying with section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990; the agreement was enforceable and the indemnity principle did not bar recovery of costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Assessment of costs to proceed on the basis that the second CCFA was enforceable and the indemnity principle does not preclude recovery of costs.