Hollins v Russell

Hollins v Russell

A CFA is not rendered unenforceable by minor or technical breaches of the Regulations unless such breaches have a materially adverse effect on client protection or the administration of justice. Costs judges should require disclosure of the CFA in costs proceedings, but not attendance notes unless a genuine issue arises. Delegation of Regulation 4 duties is permissible if properly supervised. ATE premiums and disbursements paid by the client remain recoverable even if the CFA is unenforceable.

Parties
Appellant: Bradley Hollins; Respondent: Rev S H Russell; Appellant/claimant: Mark Edward Tichband; Respondent/defendant: Mrs B Hurdman; Appellant/claimant: Alison Dunn; Respondent/defendant: Helen Ward; Appellant/claimant: Dora May Pratt; Respondent/defendant: Daniel David Michael Bull; Respondent/claimant: John Joseph Worth; Appellant/defendant: James Joseph McKenna; Appellant: Gerald Sharratt; Respondent: London Central Bus Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Consolidated Appeals
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; specific orders made for each case.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Indemnity Principle, Consumer Protection, Legal Professional Privilege, Delegation of Legal Duties
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Indemnity Principle Consumer Protection Legal Professional Privilege Delegation of Legal Duties

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bradley Hollins

Appellant

Rev S H Russell

Respondent

Mark Edward Tichband

Appellant/claimant

Mrs B Hurdman

Respondent/defendant

Alison Dunn

Appellant/claimant

Helen Ward

Respondent/defendant

Dora May Pratt

Appellant/claimant

Daniel David Michael Bull

Respondent/defendant

John Joseph Worth

Respondent/claimant

James Joseph McKenna

Appellant/defendant

Gerald Sharratt

Appellant

London Central Bus Company Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Consolidated Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 renders a CFA unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether and when a CFA must be disclosed to the paying party in costs proceedings
  3. 3 The effect of minor or technical breaches of the CFA Regulations on enforceability

Ratio Decidendi

A CFA is not rendered unenforceable by minor or technical breaches of the Regulations unless such breaches have a materially adverse effect on client protection or the administration of justice. Costs judges should require disclosure of the CFA in costs proceedings, but not attendance notes unless a genuine issue arises. Delegation of Regulation 4 duties is permissible if properly supervised. ATE premiums and disbursements paid by the client remain recoverable even if the CFA is unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part and dismissed in part; specific orders made for each case.

Orders

  • Defendants' appeals in Worth v McKenna and Pratt v Bull allowed; detailed assessment to be reheard or new timetable set.
  • Claimants’ appeals in Hollins v Russell and Tichband v Hurdman allowed; orders of lower courts set aside or remitted for assessment.