Rees & Anor v Gateley Wareing (a firm) & Anor [2013] EWHC 3708 (Ch) (03 December 2013)

Rees & Anor v Gateley Wareing (a firm) & Anor [2013] EWHC 3708 (Ch) (03 December 2013)

The enforceability of the contingency fee agreement depends on compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements; the agreement is not void for champerty, and Gateley Wareing is entitled in principle to fees under the agreements, subject to assessment.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3708 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: David Rees; Claimant: Gwyneth Rees; Defendant: Gateley Wareing (a firm); Defendant: Gateley LLP (formerly Gateley Wareing LLP and HBJ Gateley Wareing LLP)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 December 2013
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division / Judgment on Counterclaim After Settlement of Main Claim
Outcome
Counterclaim determined in favour of Gateley Wareing; entitlement to fees established in principle, subject to assessment.
Legal Topics
Contingency Fee Agreements, Conditional Fee Agreements, Solicitors' Practice Rules, Champerty, Enforceability of Fee Agreements
Contract Law Professional Negligence Legal Practice Contingency Fee Agreements Conditional Fee Agreements Solicitors' Practice Rules Champerty Enforceability of Fee Agreements

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Rees

Claimant

Gwyneth Rees

Claimant

Gateley Wareing (a firm)

Defendant

Gateley LLP (formerly Gateley Wareing LLP and HBJ Gateley Wareing LLP)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division / Judgment on Counterclaim After Settlement of Main Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contingency fee agreement between Gateley Wareing and Mr and Mrs Rees is enforceable under section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and Rule 8 of the Solicitors' Practice Rules 1990
  2. 2 Whether the agreement is void for champerty under common law
  3. 3 Interpretation and scope of the fee agreements dated 23 May 2002 and 5 August 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The enforceability of the contingency fee agreement depends on compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements; the agreement is not void for champerty, and Gateley Wareing is entitled in principle to fees under the agreements, subject to assessment.

Court Disposition

Counterclaim determined in favour of Gateley Wareing; entitlement to fees established in principle, subject to assessment.

Orders

  • Gateley Wareing to deliver a bill of costs under section 69 of the Solicitors Act 1974
  • Claimants entitled to require assessment of fees claimed