Escalate Law Ltd & Anor v Kennedy & Anor [2021] EWHC 2232 (Ch) (04 August 2021)

Escalate Law Ltd & Anor v Kennedy & Anor [2021] EWHC 2232 (Ch) (04 August 2021)

The defendants were in breach of their contractual obligations to provide clear instructions and not to require improper conduct, entitling the claimants to terminate the contract and claim their fees and disbursements. The contract was not an unenforceable damages based agreement, but even if it were, the offending provision could be severed, leaving the claimants entitled to their base charges. The defendants' counterclaim for negligence failed on the facts and evidence.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2232 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Escalate Law Ltd; Claimant: Bermans (2012) Ltd; Defendant: Michael Kennedy; Defendant: Vanessa Dawn Kennedy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Contractual Claim and Counterclaim / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Damages Based Agreements, Breach of Contract, Termination of Contract, Professional Negligence, Set Off and Counterclaim
Contract Law Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Conditional Fee Agreements Damages Based Agreements Breach of Contract Termination of Contract Set Off and Counterclaim

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Escalate Law Ltd

Claimant

Bermans (2012) Ltd

Claimant

Michael Kennedy

Defendant

Vanessa Dawn Kennedy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Contractual Claim and Counterclaim / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants were entitled to terminate the contractual arrangements for breach by the defendants
  2. 2 Whether the contractual arrangements amounted to an unenforceable damages based agreement
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were in breach of their obligations to provide clear instructions, not mislead, and not require improper conduct

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were in breach of their contractual obligations to provide clear instructions and not to require improper conduct, entitling the claimants to terminate the contract and claim their fees and disbursements. The contract was not an unenforceable damages based agreement, but even if it were, the offending provision could be severed, leaving the claimants entitled to their base charges. The defendants' counterclaim for negligence failed on the facts and evidence.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants to pay claimants' fees, disbursements, and interest as claimed
  • Counterclaim dismissed