Ahmed v Powell [2003] EWHC 9011 (Costs) (19 February 2003)

Ahmed v Powell [2003] EWHC 9011 (Costs) (19 February 2003)

Grants did not have a right of audience because they were not employed or engaged to assist in the conduct of litigation under instructions from a qualified litigator; the solicitors merely allowed the use of their name and did not supervise or instruct Grants. The contingency fee arrangement between Cornhill and Grants was champertous and unenforceable as it gave Grants a direct financial interest in the outcome of litigation without statutory safeguards, contrary to public policy.

Citation
[2003] EWHC 9011 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Claimant (not named); Defendant: First Defendant: Mr Powell; Defendant: Second Defendant (not named); Liability Insurer: Allianz Cornhill (Cornhill); Costs Negotiator: N L Grant Legal Costs Management (Grants)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs / Preliminary Issues on Rights of Audience and Champerty
Outcome
Grants did not have a right of audience; their contingency fee arrangement was champertous and unenforceable.
Legal Topics
Rights of Audience, Champerty, Contingency Fee Agreements, Costs Assessment, Agency in Litigation
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Regulation Rights of Audience Champerty Contingency Fee Agreements Costs Assessment Agency in Litigation

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claimant (not named)

Claimant

First Defendant: Mr Powell

Defendant

Second Defendant (not named)

Defendant

Allianz Cornhill (Cornhill)

Liability Insurer

N L Grant Legal Costs Management (Grants)

Costs Negotiator

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs / Preliminary Issues on Rights of Audience and Champerty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Grants (costs negotiators) had a right of audience at the detailed assessment hearing
  2. 2 Whether the contingency fee arrangement between Cornhill and Grants was champertous and unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

Grants did not have a right of audience because they were not employed or engaged to assist in the conduct of litigation under instructions from a qualified litigator; the solicitors merely allowed the use of their name and did not supervise or instruct Grants. The contingency fee arrangement between Cornhill and Grants was champertous and unenforceable as it gave Grants a direct financial interest in the outcome of litigation without statutory safeguards, contrary to public policy.

Court Disposition

Grants did not have a right of audience; their contingency fee arrangement was champertous and unenforceable.

Orders

  • Detailed assessment hearing to proceed without Grants having rights of audience.
  • Grants' fees not recoverable as costs between the parties.