Nicholas Stoop v Nicola Maxine Johnson

Nicholas Stoop v Nicola Maxine Johnson

The agreement was unenforceable because it failed to specify the true reason for the success fee as required by regulation 3(c) of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, and because it related to family proceedings, contrary to s58AA(4)(aa) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Even if enforceable, the claimant did not play a sufficiently significant role in obtaining the compensation to be entitled to the success fee.

Parties
Claimant: Nicholas Stoop (Trading as Warwick Risk Management); Defendant: Nicola Maxine Johnson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract/commercial / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Damages Based Agreements, Enforceability of Contracts, Consumer Rights, Legal Services Regulation
Contract Law Regulatory Law Family Law Damages Based Agreements Enforceability of Contracts Consumer Rights Legal Services Regulation

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Stoop (Trading as Warwick Risk Management)

Claimant

Nicola Maxine Johnson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Contract/commercial / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Damages-Based Agreement (DBA) is unenforceable for breach of regulation 3(c) of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013
  2. 2 Whether the DBA relates to family proceedings and is thus unenforceable under s58AA(4)(aa) Courts and Legal Services Act 1990
  3. 3 On construction, what causal connection is required between the claimant's work and the compensation for the success fee to be payable

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was unenforceable because it failed to specify the true reason for the success fee as required by regulation 3(c) of the Damages-Based Agreements Regulations 2013, and because it related to family proceedings, contrary to s58AA(4)(aa) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. Even if enforceable, the claimant did not play a sufficiently significant role in obtaining the compensation to be entitled to the success fee.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claimant's claim for the success fee is dismissed