Barlow v Perks
There was material non-compliance with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, as the Claimant was not properly advised about the status of his BTE insurance or alternative options, rendering the CFA unenforceable and precluding recovery of costs under Part 3 of the bill.
- Parties
- Claimant: Roger Barlow; Defendant: Lucy Ewart Perks
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 19 October 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Costs Assessment / Judgment on Preliminary Issue
- Outcome
- CFA held unenforceable; Claimant's solicitors cannot recover costs under Part 3 of the bill.
- Legal Topics
- Conditional Fee Agreements, Regulatory Compliance, Legal Expenses Insurance, Material Non Compliance
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Roger Barlow
Claimant
Lucy Ewart Perks
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Judgment on Preliminary Issue
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) entered into by the Claimant and Irwin Mitchell is valid and enforceable given alleged breaches of Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000
Ratio Decidendi
There was material non-compliance with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, as the Claimant was not properly advised about the status of his BTE insurance or alternative options, rendering the CFA unenforceable and precluding recovery of costs under Part 3 of the bill.
Court Disposition
CFA held unenforceable; Claimant's solicitors cannot recover costs under Part 3 of the bill.
Orders
- Irwin Mitchell cannot recover any costs in respect of Part 3 of the bill.
- Parties encouraged to agree costs for Parts 1 and 2.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment