Bowen v Bridgend County Borough Council

Bowen v Bridgend County Borough Council

The CFAs are unenforceable due to material non-compliance with Regulations 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(d), which had a materially adverse effect on client protection and the administration of justice. The claimants should have been advised to use legal aid, and the Fastrack scheme exposed them to unreasonable and disproportionate costs. Only paid disbursements and costs of assessment are recoverable; success fees, ATE premiums, and certain disbursements are disallowed.

Parties
Claimant: Nicola Bowen; Defendant: Bridgend County Borough Council; Claimant: Meryl Jones; Claimant: Beveley Simmons; Claimant: Brian Owen; Claimant: James Farrow; Claimant: Patricia Baker; Claimant: Hilda Pritchard; Claimant: Morag Mellish; Claimant: Loran Austin; Claimant: John Pace; Claimant: Elizabeth Wintle
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs (housing Disrepair, Multiple Claims) / Judgment After Contested Hearing on Costs
Outcome
CFAs declared unenforceable; only paid disbursements and costs of assessment allowed; success fees, ATE premiums, and certain disbursements disallowed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Success Fees, Legal Aid, After the Event (ate) Insurance, Proportionality of Costs, Surveyors’ Fees, Enforceability of Cfas
Civil Procedure Costs Law Housing Law Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Success Fees Legal Aid After the Event (ate) Insurance Proportionality of Costs +2 more

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

Parties

Nicola Bowen

Claimant

Bridgend County Borough Council

Defendant

Meryl Jones

Claimant

Beveley Simmons

Claimant

Brian Owen

Claimant

James Farrow

Claimant

Patricia Baker

Claimant

Hilda Pritchard

Claimant

Morag Mellish

Claimant

Loran Austin

Claimant

John Pace

Claimant

Elizabeth Wintle

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs (housing Disrepair, Multiple Claims) / Judgment After Contested Hearing on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CFAs are enforceable given alleged non-compliance with the CFA Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the claimants acted reasonably in choosing CFA/ATE insurance over legal aid
  3. 3 What is the reasonable and proportionate amount of costs and disbursements recoverable

Ratio Decidendi

The CFAs are unenforceable due to material non-compliance with Regulations 4(2)(c) and 4(2)(d), which had a materially adverse effect on client protection and the administration of justice. The claimants should have been advised to use legal aid, and the Fastrack scheme exposed them to unreasonable and disproportionate costs. Only paid disbursements and costs of assessment are recoverable; success fees, ATE premiums, and certain disbursements are disallowed.

Court Disposition

CFAs declared unenforceable; only paid disbursements and costs of assessment allowed; success fees, ATE premiums, and certain disbursements disallowed.

Orders

  • Defendant’s liability for costs limited to paid disbursements and costs of assessment.
  • Success fees, ATE insurance premiums, and fees to Fastrack Litigation Services Ltd and for risk assessment reports disallowed.