White v Revell Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 90054 (Costs) (08 September 2006)

White v Revell Rev 1 [2006] EWHC 90054 (Costs) (08 September 2006)

The court found that the Claimant's solicitors failed to comply with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, particularly Regulation 4(2)(c), by not properly considering and advising on the availability of before-the-event legal expenses insurance and other funding options. The breaches were material and had a materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the client and the administration of justice. Accordingly, the CFA was unenforceable.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 90054 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Keith Lewis James White; Defendant: Mark Peter Revell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs in Personal Injury Litigation / Post Trial, Detailed Assessment of Costs
Outcome
CFA held unenforceable; costs not recoverable under the CFA
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Enforceability of Cfas, Compliance With Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, Indemnity Principle, Legal Expenses Insurance, Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements Enforceability of Cfas Compliance With Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 Indemnity Principle Legal Expenses Insurance +1 more

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Keith Lewis James White

Claimant

Mark Peter Revell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs in Personal Injury Litigation / Post Trial, Detailed Assessment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) entered into by the Claimant with Irwin Mitchell was enforceable under the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, specifically Regulation 4 and Regulation 4(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant's solicitors complied with their obligations to advise on the availability of before-the-event (BTE) legal expenses insurance and other funding options
  3. 3 Whether any breach of the Regulations was material so as to render the CFA unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimant's solicitors failed to comply with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000, particularly Regulation 4(2)(c), by not properly considering and advising on the availability of before-the-event legal expenses insurance and other funding options. The breaches were material and had a materially adverse effect on the protection afforded to the client and the administration of justice. Accordingly, the CFA was unenforceable.

Court Disposition

CFA held unenforceable; costs not recoverable under the CFA

Orders

  • The Claimant's costs under the CFA are not recoverable from the Defendant.
  • Assessment of costs limited to those incurred under private retainers prior to the CFA.