Richards v Davis [2005] EWHC 90014 (Costs) (25 November 2005)

Richards v Davis [2005] EWHC 90014 (Costs) (25 November 2005)

It is not an abuse of process for a defendant or insurer to raise compliance issues with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 where neither was party to the prior mediation in the TAG test litigation. The mediated agreement was not binding on non-parties, and no Group Litigation Order was made. The compliance issues are fact-sensitive and must be considered on their merits. The defendant is entitled to challenge whether the required advice was given to the claimant regarding funding and insurance, and whether the CFA is enforceable.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 90014 (Costs)
Parties
Claimant: Paul Richards; Defendant: William M Davis
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Detailed Assessment of Costs (post Settlement) / Costs Assessment Following Settlement of Personal Injury Claim
Outcome
Defendant permitted to raise compliance issues; no abuse of process found; detailed assessment to proceed on merits of Regulation 4 compliance.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, After the Event Insurance, BTE Insurance, Abuse of Process, Detailed Assessment of Costs
Civil Procedure Costs Law Personal Injury Conditional Fee Agreements After the Event Insurance BTE Insurance Abuse of Process Detailed Assessment of Costs

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Richards

Claimant

William M Davis

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Detailed Assessment of Costs (post Settlement) / Costs Assessment Following Settlement of Personal Injury Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether raising compliance with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 is an abuse of process after mediation in TAG test cases
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of Regulation 4 in the advice given to the claimant regarding funding and insurance
  3. 3 Whether the CFA is unenforceable due to non-compliance with Regulation 4

Ratio Decidendi

It is not an abuse of process for a defendant or insurer to raise compliance issues with Regulation 4 of the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 where neither was party to the prior mediation in the TAG test litigation. The mediated agreement was not binding on non-parties, and no Group Litigation Order was made. The compliance issues are fact-sensitive and must be considered on their merits. The defendant is entitled to challenge whether the required advice was given to the claimant regarding funding and insurance, and whether the CFA is enforceable.

Court Disposition

Defendant permitted to raise compliance issues; no abuse of process found; detailed assessment to proceed on merits of Regulation 4 compliance.

Orders

  • Detailed assessment of costs to proceed before the Senior Costs Judge.
  • No summary determination on abuse of process; defendant's challenge to Regulation 4 compliance to be considered.