Elstone v Knowles [2007] EWHC 90089 (Costs) (21 November 2007)

Elstone v Knowles [2007] EWHC 90089 (Costs) (21 November 2007)

The arrangements of the ALP panel did not constitute a discloseable interest in this case; therefore, the claimant's solicitors were not in breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000. Even if there had been an interest, it was not disclosed, but the non-disclosure would have been sufficiently significant to affect the protection afforded to the client. However, as no breach was found, the CFA was enforceable and the claimant's solicitors were entitled to their costs.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 90089 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: William Elstone; Defendant: Brett Knowles
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs / Post Settlement Costs Assessment
Outcome
Claimant's solicitors entitled to costs; CFA enforceable.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance, Disclosure Obligations, Solicitor's Interest Disclosure, Enforceability of CFA
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance Disclosure Obligations Solicitor's Interest Disclosure Enforceability of CFA

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Elstone

Claimant

Brett Knowles

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Post Settlement Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant's solicitors complied with Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 by informing the claimant of any interest in recommending ATE insurance from Accident Line Protect (ALP)
  2. 2 If not, whether the non-compliance rendered the CFA unenforceable due to a materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the claimant or the administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements of the ALP panel did not constitute a discloseable interest in this case; therefore, the claimant's solicitors were not in breach of Regulation 4(2)(e)(ii) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000. Even if there had been an interest, it was not disclosed, but the non-disclosure would have been sufficiently significant to affect the protection afforded to the client. However, as no breach was found, the CFA was enforceable and the claimant's solicitors were entitled to their costs.

Court Disposition

Claimant's solicitors entitled to costs; CFA enforceable.

Orders

  • Claimant's solicitors awarded agreed costs of £15,000.