Bray Walker Solicitors (a firm) & Anor v Silvera [2008] EWHC 3147 (QB) (18 December 2008)

Bray Walker Solicitors (a firm) & Anor v Silvera [2008] EWHC 3147 (QB) (18 December 2008)

The CFAs failed to comply with Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 because they did not specify the reasons for setting the success fee at 75%, particularly the assessment of risk, which was the major component of the fee. This omission rendered the CFAs unenforceable. The other defences based on breach of retainer and alleged agreement to suspend termination were rejected on the facts. The claimants are not entitled to recover their basic fees under the CFAs.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 3147
Parties
Claimant: Bray Walker Solicitors (A Firm); Claimant: Bevans Bray Walkers Limited (T/A Bevans); Defendant: Carlo Moise Silvera
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Claim for Solicitor's Fees Under Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) / High Court Trial, Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitors' Fees, Enforceability of Contracts, Compliance With CFA Regulations, Novation of Contracts
Contract Law Civil Procedure Legal Profession Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitors' Fees Enforceability of Contracts Compliance With CFA Regulations Novation of Contracts

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bray Walker Solicitors (A Firm)

Claimant

Bevans Bray Walkers Limited (T/A Bevans)

Claimant

Carlo Moise Silvera

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Claim for Solicitor's Fees Under Conditional Fee Agreements (cfas) / High Court Trial, Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CFAs complied with the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 and are enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the claimants breached the retainer or CFA terms
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of the retainer to the second claimant amounted to a repudiatory breach

Ratio Decidendi

The CFAs failed to comply with Regulation 3(1)(a) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 because they did not specify the reasons for setting the success fee at 75%, particularly the assessment of risk, which was the major component of the fee. This omission rendered the CFAs unenforceable. The other defences based on breach of retainer and alleged agreement to suspend termination were rejected on the facts. The claimants are not entitled to recover their basic fees under the CFAs.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' claim for basic fees under the CFAs is dismissed as the agreements are unenforceable.
  • No order as to success fees; claimants reserve right to sue further depending on outcome.