Woolley v Haden Building Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 90097 (Costs) (15 February 2008)

Woolley v Haden Building Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 90097 (Costs) (15 February 2008)

There was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(c) because the solicitor made reasonable and proportionate enquiries in the context of a complex, high-value asbestos disease claim, and the stricter guidance in Sarwar v Alam was not applicable. Even if there had been a breach, it would not have had a materially adverse effect on the Claimant or the administration of justice.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 90097 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Barbara June Woolley (Widow and Personal Representative of the Estate of David John Woolley, Deceased); Defendant: Haden Building Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (preliminary Issue) / Preliminary Issue Determination Before Detailed Assessment
Outcome
Defendant's challenge dismissed; detailed assessment to proceed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Compliance With CFA Regulations, Legal Expenses Insurance, Detailed Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Compliance With CFA Regulations Legal Expenses Insurance Detailed Assessment of Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barbara June Woolley (Widow and Personal Representative of the Estate of David John Woolley, Deceased)

Claimant

Haden Building Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (preliminary Issue) / Preliminary Issue Determination Before Detailed Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant's solicitors complied with Regulation 4(2)(c) of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether failure to comply would render the CFA unenforceable and preclude recovery of costs

Ratio Decidendi

There was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(c) because the solicitor made reasonable and proportionate enquiries in the context of a complex, high-value asbestos disease claim, and the stricter guidance in Sarwar v Alam was not applicable. Even if there had been a breach, it would not have had a materially adverse effect on the Claimant or the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Defendant's challenge dismissed; detailed assessment to proceed.

Orders

  • Detailed assessment of the Claimant's costs to proceed.
  • Costs and other consequential issues to be addressed at the next hearing.