Ghannouchi v Houni Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 9002 (Costs) (04 March 2004)

Ghannouchi v Houni Ltd & Ors [2004] EWHC 9002 (Costs) (04 March 2004)

The Claimant's CFA did not comply with Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, as the wording failed to make clear that the client did not have to pay the shortfall in base costs as well as the shortfall on the success fee where there was an agreement on costs. However, in the circumstances of this case, the breach did not have a materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the client or the administration of justice, and the CFA remained enforceable.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 9002 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (Leader of An Nahda); Defendant: Defendants (Al Arab and others)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment Following Defamation Trial / Detailed Assessment of Costs and Enforceability of CFA
Outcome
CFA found non-compliant with Regulation 3(2)(c) but enforceable as breach was not materially adverse; costs assessed in favour of Claimant.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Success Fees, Indemnity Principle, Detailed Assessment of Costs, Interpretation of Statutory Instruments
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Success Fees Indemnity Principle Detailed Assessment of Costs Interpretation of Statutory Instruments

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (Leader of An Nahda)

Claimant

Defendants (Al Arab and others)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment Following Defamation Trial / Detailed Assessment of Costs and Enforceability of CFA

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's CFA complied with Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of Regulation 4 regarding information and explanation to the client
  3. 3 Whether any breach had a materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the client or the administration of justice

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant's CFA did not comply with Regulation 3(2)(c) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, as the wording failed to make clear that the client did not have to pay the shortfall in base costs as well as the shortfall on the success fee where there was an agreement on costs. However, in the circumstances of this case, the breach did not have a materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the client or the administration of justice, and the CFA remained enforceable.

Court Disposition

CFA found non-compliant with Regulation 3(2)(c) but enforceable as breach was not materially adverse; costs assessed in favour of Claimant.

Orders

  • Claimant entitled to costs subject to detailed assessment.
  • Defendants to pay £140,000 on account of costs.