Ahmed v Powell

Ahmed v Powell

Grants Legal Costs Management, and specifically Mr Swallow, did not have a right of audience because they were not employed or engaged to assist in the conduct of litigation under instructions from a qualified litigator; the arrangement between Grants and Cornhill was champertous as it involved a contingency fee agreement giving Grants a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, contrary to public policy and statutory requirements.

Parties
Claimant: Sajida Ahmed; Defendant: P. Powell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Preliminary Issues Determination in Detailed Assessment Proceedings
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined against the Defendant; Mr Swallow of Grants had no right of audience and the terms of payment were champertous.
Legal Topics
Rights of Audience, Champerty, Contingency Fee Agreements, Costs Negotiators, Legal Representation
Civil Procedure Costs Law Rights of Audience Champerty Contingency Fee Agreements Costs Negotiators Legal Representation

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

Parties

Sajida Ahmed

Claimant

P. Powell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Preliminary Issues Determination in Detailed Assessment Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Swallow of Grants Legal Costs Management had a right of audience at the hearing on 9 September 2002
  2. 2 Whether the terms of payment pursuant to which Mr Swallow appeared were champertous

Ratio Decidendi

Grants Legal Costs Management, and specifically Mr Swallow, did not have a right of audience because they were not employed or engaged to assist in the conduct of litigation under instructions from a qualified litigator; the arrangement between Grants and Cornhill was champertous as it involved a contingency fee agreement giving Grants a financial interest in the outcome of litigation, contrary to public policy and statutory requirements.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined against the Defendant; Mr Swallow of Grants had no right of audience and the terms of payment were champertous.

Orders

  • The Claimant is prohibited from using the letters from Cornhill to Grants dated 18 January 2001 and 24 January 2001 in subsequent proceedings or from making those documents available to the public.