Myers v Bonnington (Cavendish Hotel) Ltd.

Myers v Bonnington (Cavendish Hotel) Ltd.

Although there was a technical breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) in failing to disclose the obligation to recommend Accident Line Protect insurance, the interest was de minimis and had no materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the client or the administration of justice. Therefore, the CFA remains enforceable.

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) / Ruling on Preliminary Issue Before Detailed Assessment
Outcome
Preliminary issue decided in favour of the Claimant; CFA enforceable.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitors' Duties, Disclosure of Interests, De Minimis Principle
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitors' Duties Disclosure of Interests De Minimis Principle

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 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) / Ruling on 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 (CFAR 2000) by the Claimant’s solicitors.

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a technical breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) in failing to disclose the obligation to recommend Accident Line Protect insurance, the interest was de minimis and had no materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the client or the administration of justice. Therefore, the CFA remains enforceable.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

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