Myers v Bonnington (Cavendish Hotel) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 90077 (Costs) (06 July 2007)

Myers v Bonnington (Cavendish Hotel) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 90077 (Costs) (06 July 2007)

Although there was a technical breach of the Regulations in failing to disclose the obligation to recommend Accident Line insurance, the interest was de minimis and had no material adverse effect on the client or the administration of justice. Therefore, the CFA is enforceable.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 90077 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Harry Bernard Myers; Defendant: Bonnington (Cavendish Hotel) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (preliminary Issue) / Preliminary Issue Before Detailed Assessment
Outcome
Preliminary issue decided in favour of the Claimant; CFA enforceable.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Enforceability of Cfas, Disclosure Obligations, Material Breach, De Minimis Principle
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Enforceability of Cfas Disclosure Obligations Material Breach De Minimis Principle

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Mr Harry Bernard Myers

Claimant

Bonnington (Cavendish Hotel) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (preliminary Issue) / Preliminary Issue Before Detailed Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) is unenforceable due to alleged non-compliance with Regulation 4(2)(e) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a technical breach of the Regulations in failing to disclose the obligation to recommend Accident Line insurance, the interest was de minimis and had no material adverse effect on the client or the administration of justice. Therefore, the CFA is enforceable.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issue decided in favour of the Claimant; CFA enforceable.

Orders

  • Declaration that there has been no breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) sufficient to invalidate the CFA; CFA may be relied upon by the Claimant.
  • Directions to be given for conclusion of detailed assessment.