ASCENSION ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED v SKY SOLICITORS LIMITED

ASCENSION ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED v SKY SOLICITORS LIMITED

The DCFAs, properly interpreted, entitle the Defendant solicitors to payment of their reasonable basic charges upon a successful outcome, even where no express costs order is made in the Claimants’ favour. Subclause 7.3 only limits liability where a costs order is made, not in cases of settlement without such an order. No enforceable cap of £50,000 arose from mediation representations. Even if the DCFAs were ambiguous, a term to this effect would be implied, and the Claimants are estopped from denying liability for basic charges.

Parties
First Claimant: Ascension Asset Management Limited; Second Claimant: Goriola Olusina Daniel; Defendant: Sky Solicitors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Contractual Dispute / Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions
Outcome
Defendant entitled to payment of reasonable basic charges under the DCFAs; Claimants’ arguments rejected.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Interpretation of Contracts, Estoppel, Solicitor Client Costs, Implied Terms
Contract Law Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Interpretation of Contracts Estoppel Solicitor Client Costs Implied Terms

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

Parties

Ascension Asset Management Limited

First Claimant

Goriola Olusina Daniel

Second Claimant

Sky Solicitors Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Contractual Dispute / Judgment After Hearing and Written Submissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant solicitors are entitled to payment of basic charges under the DCFAs following a successful outcome without an express costs order in the Claimants’ favour
  2. 2 Whether the DCFAs limit the Claimants’ liability to basic charges only if recovered from the Opponents
  3. 3 Whether representations made during mediation cap the Defendant’s fees at £50,000

Ratio Decidendi

The DCFAs, properly interpreted, entitle the Defendant solicitors to payment of their reasonable basic charges upon a successful outcome, even where no express costs order is made in the Claimants’ favour. Subclause 7.3 only limits liability where a costs order is made, not in cases of settlement without such an order. No enforceable cap of £50,000 arose from mediation representations. Even if the DCFAs were ambiguous, a term to this effect would be implied, and the Claimants are estopped from denying liability for basic charges.

Court Disposition

Defendant entitled to payment of reasonable basic charges under the DCFAs; Claimants’ arguments rejected.

Orders

  • Claimants to pay Defendant’s reasonable basic charges and disbursements, subject to assessment if not agreed.
  • No cap of £50,000 applies to the Defendant’s fees.