Dunn v Crescenzo Mici [2008] EWHC 90115 (Costs) (25 June 2008)

Mr Dunn was the sole client under the CFA, his mother acting only as agent; there was no requirement to provide Regulation 4 advice to Mrs Dunn. The solicitors complied with the Regulations in respect of Mr Dunn, so the CFA was valid and enforceable.

Citation: [2008] EWHC 90115 (Costs)
Parties: Appellant: Daniel Dunn; Respondent: Crescenco Mici
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 25 June 2008
Procedural Posture: Costs Appeal / Appeal From Costs Officer's Decision
Outcome: Appeal allowed
Legal Topics: Conditional Fee Agreements, Enforceability of Cfas, Compliance With CFA Regulations, Indemnity Principle

Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Enforceability of Cfas Compliance With CFA Regulations Indemnity Principle

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Daniel Dunn

Appellant

Crescenco Mici

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Costs Appeal / Appeal From Costs Officer's Decision

Legal Issues

1 Whether the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) was unenforceable for non-compliance with Regulation 4(2)(c) of the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000
2 Whether Mrs Dunn was a client requiring Regulation 4 advice or merely an agent for Mr Dunn
3 Whether failure to provide Regulation 4 advice to Mrs Dunn invalidated the CFA

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

Matter remitted to the Costs Officer for detailed assessment of the bill.
Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal and below, to be assessed if not agreed.