Fosberry v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 3344 (Ch) (25 May 2007)

Fosberry v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 3344 (Ch) (25 May 2007)

The CFA was non-compliant in three material respects: (1) failure to provide for reduction of fees in the event of agreement with the litigation counterparty (Regulation 3(2)(c)); (2) failure to specify the element of the success fee attributable to delay in payment (Regulation 3(1)(b)); and (3) failure to specify what payment is due on termination of the agreement (Regulation 2(1)(c)(iii)). These shortcomings, individually and collectively, prevented substantial compliance with the regulations and rendered the CFA unenforceable.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 3344 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Fosberry; Defendant: HM Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Assessment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs Assessment, Consumer Protection, Enforceability of Legal Agreements
Civil Procedure Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Costs Assessment Consumer Protection Enforceability of Legal 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fosberry

Claimant

HM Revenue & Customs

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditional fee agreement (CFA) between the Fosberrys and BJ Rice & Associates complied with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 and was enforceable for the purposes of recovering costs from HMRC.

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA was non-compliant in three material respects: (1) failure to provide for reduction of fees in the event of agreement with the litigation counterparty (Regulation 3(2)(c)); (2) failure to specify the element of the success fee attributable to delay in payment (Regulation 3(1)(b)); and (3) failure to specify what payment is due on termination of the agreement (Regulation 2(1)(c)(iii)). These shortcomings, individually and collectively, prevented substantial compliance with the regulations and rendered the CFA unenforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is rejected; the CFA is unenforceable; no costs are recoverable from HMRC by the Claimant in respect of BJ Rice & Associates' fees.