David Richardson & Ors v Slater & Gordon UK Limited

David Richardson & Ors v Slater & Gordon UK Limited

The retainers are not unenforceable DBAs; the defendant provided sufficient oral and written information to satisfy the 2013 Regulations; written agreements satisfied CPR 46.9(2) and excluded s.74(3) Solicitors Act 1974 without need for informed consent; the key terms were transparent and prominent, so not unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; success fees must be assessed for reasonableness due to lack of case-specific risk explanation; charging all fee earners at £217/hour is unusual and not reasonable without justification.

Parties
Claimants: David Richardson and 223 Others; Defendant: Slater & Gordon UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Solicitor Client Retainer Challenge / Preliminary Issues Judgment
Outcome
Claimants' challenges to enforceability of retainers and compliance with consumer regulations dismissed; success fees and hourly rates to be assessed for reasonableness.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Damages Based Agreements, Consumer Contracts, Solicitor Client Costs, Success Fees, Hourly Rates, Unfair Terms
Civil Procedure Consumer Law Costs Law Conditional Fee Agreements Damages Based Agreements Consumer Contracts Solicitor Client Costs Success Fees +2 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 6 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Richardson and 223 Others

Claimants

Slater & Gordon UK Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Solicitor Client Retainer Challenge / Preliminary Issues Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the retainers unenforceable Damages Based Agreements (DBAs)?
  2. 2 Did the defendant comply with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013?
  3. 3 Was there informed consent to contractual terms permitting payment of costs greater than recoverable from the opponent?

Ratio Decidendi

The retainers are not unenforceable DBAs; the defendant provided sufficient oral and written information to satisfy the 2013 Regulations; written agreements satisfied CPR 46.9(2) and excluded s.74(3) Solicitors Act 1974 without need for informed consent; the key terms were transparent and prominent, so not unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015; success fees must be assessed for reasonableness due to lack of case-specific risk explanation; charging all fee earners at £217/hour is unusual and not reasonable without justification.

Court Disposition

Claimants' challenges to enforceability of retainers and compliance with consumer regulations dismissed; success fees and hourly rates to be assessed for reasonableness.

Orders

  • Retainers are enforceable and not DBAs.
  • No breach of Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013.