Litkraft Limited v Simon Cottrell & Ors.

Litkraft Limited v Simon Cottrell & Ors.

The 2013 Contract (or the parties' oral agreement) was validly varied by email exchange to provide for a 17.5% fee on High Value Cases. There was no conditionality or requirement for a further written contract. The arrangement was not void for illegality as the only regulatory breach was the Defendants' failure to notify clients, which did not justify barring the Claimant's claim. Payment was not conditional on VAT invoices. Translation fees and liability for transferred cases were governed by the parties' course of dealings, with the Defendants remaining liable for accrued fees at the time of transfer if the claim succeeded.

Parties
Claimant: Litkraft Limited; Defendant: Simon Cottrell; Defendant: Christopher Williams; Defendant: Edward Goldsmith
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant on all live preliminary issues; Defendants liable for fees as varied/agreed, subject to quantum to be determined.
Legal Topics
Contract Variation, Illegality, Fee Sharing, Claims Management Regulation, Estoppel, Quantum Meruit, Limitation, VAT Invoicing, Translation Fees, Transferred Cases
Contract Law Professional Regulation Contract Variation Illegality Fee Sharing Claims Management Regulation Estoppel Quantum Meruit +4 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Litkraft Limited

Claimant

Simon Cottrell

Defendant

Christopher Williams

Defendant

Edward Goldsmith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Dispute / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2013 Contract was varied to provide for a percentage fee in High Value Cases
  2. 2 Whether a new contract was agreed for High Value Cases
  3. 3 Effect of the Settlement Agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The 2013 Contract (or the parties' oral agreement) was validly varied by email exchange to provide for a 17.5% fee on High Value Cases. There was no conditionality or requirement for a further written contract. The arrangement was not void for illegality as the only regulatory breach was the Defendants' failure to notify clients, which did not justify barring the Claimant's claim. Payment was not conditional on VAT invoices. Translation fees and liability for transferred cases were governed by the parties' course of dealings, with the Defendants remaining liable for accrued fees at the time of transfer if the claim succeeded.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant on all live preliminary issues; Defendants liable for fees as varied/agreed, subject to quantum to be determined.

Orders

  • Declaration that the contract was varied to provide for 17.5% fee on High Value Cases, capped at £10,000.
  • Defendants liable for accrued fees on transferred cases if claim succeeded.