White v Revell Rev 1

White v Revell Rev 1

The court found that the solicitors had complied with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000. The advice required by Regulation 4 was given orally on three occasions and in writing, and the Claimant was sufficiently advised regarding the availability of BTE insurance and other funding options. The breaches alleged by the Defendant were not established on the evidence, and the CFA was enforceable.

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 (personal Injury) / Judgment After Oral and Written Submissions Following Detailed Assessment Hearing
Outcome
CFA held enforceable; Claimant's costs to be assessed and paid by Defendant.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Indemnity Principle, Legal Expenses Insurance, Regulation 4 Compliance
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Indemnity Principle Legal Expenses Insurance Regulation 4 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 4 Authorities cited 10 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 (personal Injury) / Judgment After Oral and Written Submissions Following Detailed Assessment Hearing

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.
  2. 2 Whether sufficient advice was given to the Claimant regarding the availability of before the event (BTE) insurance and other methods of funding as required by Regulation 4(2)(c).
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the solicitors satisfied the requirements of the Regulations and the Solicitors Client Care Code.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the solicitors had complied with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000. The advice required by Regulation 4 was given orally on three occasions and in writing, and the Claimant was sufficiently advised regarding the availability of BTE insurance and other funding options. The breaches alleged by the Defendant were not established on the evidence, and the CFA was enforceable.

Court Disposition

CFA held enforceable; Claimant's costs to be assessed and paid by Defendant.

Orders

  • Claimant's costs to be assessed on the standard basis and paid by the Defendant.