Overton v Horder

Overton v Horder

There was no evidence that BBK were obliged to recommend the AAH insurance policy or would lose panel membership if they did not; therefore, no declarable interest existed and there was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii).

Parties
Claimant: Laura Overton; Defendant: Brent Horder
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Preliminary Issue on Enforceability of CFA
Outcome
Claimant's CFA is enforceable; no breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) found.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Enforceability of CFA, Disclosure Obligations, ATE Insurance, Panel Solicitor Schemes
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Enforceability of CFA Disclosure Obligations ATE Insurance Panel Solicitor Schemes

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laura Overton

Claimant

Brent Horder

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Preliminary Issue on Enforceability of CFA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant’s CFA is unenforceable for failure to comply with Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that BBK were obliged to recommend the AAH insurance policy or would lose panel membership if they did not; therefore, no declarable interest existed and there was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii).

Court Disposition

Claimant's CFA is enforceable; no breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) found.