Forde v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 90105 (Costs) (30 April 2008)

Forde v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 90105 (Costs) (30 April 2008)

CFA II is unenforceable due to presumed undue influence in its procurement, lack of adequate independent advice, and failure of consideration; its retrospective nature and the success fee are invalid and irrecoverable. CFA I does not survive as a fallback because it was replaced by CFA II and is itself unenforceable due to material regulatory breach regarding advice on public funding. Accordingly, the defendant is not liable for the claimant's costs under the order.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 90105 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Rose Forde; Defendant: Birmingham City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (preliminary Issues) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues Regarding Enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) and Costs
Outcome
Claimant's claim for costs dismissed; defendant not liable for claimant's costs under the order.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Undue Influence, Consideration, Retrospective Agreements, Public Funding, Housing Disrepair, Indemnity Principle
Civil Procedure Costs Law Contract Law Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Undue Influence Consideration Retrospective Agreements +3 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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rose Forde

Claimant

Birmingham City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (preliminary Issues) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues Regarding Enforceability of Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CFA II is unenforceable due to covering matters in CFA I
  2. 2 Whether it was reasonable for the claimant to enter into CFA II
  3. 3 Whether CFA II is unenforceable due to retrospectivity

Ratio Decidendi

CFA II is unenforceable due to presumed undue influence in its procurement, lack of adequate independent advice, and failure of consideration; its retrospective nature and the success fee are invalid and irrecoverable. CFA I does not survive as a fallback because it was replaced by CFA II and is itself unenforceable due to material regulatory breach regarding advice on public funding. Accordingly, the defendant is not liable for the claimant's costs under the order.

Court Disposition

Claimant's claim for costs dismissed; defendant not liable for claimant's costs under the order.

Orders

  • No order for costs in favour of the claimant against the defendant.
  • Claimant's solicitors cannot recover costs from the defendant under either CFA.