Barlow v Perks

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Roger Barlow

Claimant

Lucy Ewart Perks

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Judgment on Preliminary Issue

  1. 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.