Galitzky v Vizards Wyeth (A Firm) [2007] EWHC 90083 (Costs) (30 August 2007)

Galitzky v Vizards Wyeth (A Firm) [2007] EWHC 90083 (Costs) (30 August 2007)

The CFA is not one to which regulation 3A applies because the client is liable for disbursements regardless of recovery; there was no breach of regulations 2(1), 4(2)(a), or 4(2)(c) as the agreement and solicitor's conduct satisfied the regulatory requirements; the success fee of 75% was unreasonable and a 25% success fee is justified based on an 80% prospect of success.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 90083 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Davide Galitzky; Defendant: Vizards Wyeth (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment of Bill of Costs
Outcome
Conditional fee agreement enforceable; success fee reduced.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Professional Negligence, Success Fee, Regulatory Compliance
Civil Procedure Costs Conditional Fee Agreements Professional Negligence Success Fee Regulatory Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Davide Galitzky

Claimant

Vizards Wyeth (a firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Detailed Assessment of Bill of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditional fee agreement (CFA) is subject to regulation 3A of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000
  2. 2 Whether there was any breach of the 2000 Regulations by the Claimant's solicitors
  3. 3 If so, whether any breach was material and rendered the agreement unenforceable

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA is not one to which regulation 3A applies because the client is liable for disbursements regardless of recovery; there was no breach of regulations 2(1), 4(2)(a), or 4(2)(c) as the agreement and solicitor's conduct satisfied the regulatory requirements; the success fee of 75% was unreasonable and a 25% success fee is justified based on an 80% prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Conditional fee agreement enforceable; success fee reduced.

Orders

  • Conditional fee agreement between Claimant and TSS is enforceable.
  • Success fee allowed at 25% instead of 75%.