Pentecost v John

Pentecost v John

The second CCFA applied retrospectively and encompassed the pre-existing written statement of success fee, thereby satisfying statutory requirements and rendering the retainer enforceable; the indemnity principle did not preclude recovery of costs.

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
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Indemnity Principle, Retrospective Contracts, Enforceability of Retainers
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Indemnity Principle Retrospective Contracts Enforceability of Retainers

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second CCFA was enforceable for costs incurred after 2 July 2009
  2. 2 Whether a pre-existing written statement of success fee satisfied statutory requirements under the second CCFA
  3. 3 Whether the second CCFA was a novation or variation

Ratio Decidendi

The second CCFA applied retrospectively and encompassed the pre-existing written statement of success fee, thereby satisfying statutory requirements and rendering the retainer enforceable; the indemnity principle did not preclude recovery of costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

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