Ryan Perrett v Wolferstans LLP

Ryan Perrett v Wolferstans LLP

The agreement between the parties was a CFA, not a DBA, and did not constitute a valid Non-Contentious Business Agreement. The defendant was not obliged to offer or advise on DBAs. The information provided to the claimant fell short of best practice but was sufficient given the 25% cap. No pre-contractual representation altered the terms of the CFA. Costs are to be assessed under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and S(NCB)RO, with fairness and reasonableness determined primarily by time spent and relevant factors under Article 3.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Ryan Perrett; Defendant: Wolferstans LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment / Reserved Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Costs to be assessed under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and S(NCB)RO; claimant's challenges to the nature of the agreement and alleged breaches dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements, Damages Based Agreements, Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct, Consumer Rights Act, Solicitors Act, Non Contentious Business Agreements
Civil Procedure Legal Costs Contract Law Conditional Fee Agreements Damages Based Agreements Solicitors Regulation Authority Code of Conduct Consumer Rights Act Solicitors Act +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ryan Perrett

Claimant

Wolferstans LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment / Reserved Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature and enforceability of the retainer agreement (CFA vs DBA)
  2. 2 Compliance with statutory requirements for CFAs and DBAs
  3. 3 Fairness and reasonableness of solicitors' costs under S(NCB)RO

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between the parties was a CFA, not a DBA, and did not constitute a valid Non-Contentious Business Agreement. The defendant was not obliged to offer or advise on DBAs. The information provided to the claimant fell short of best practice but was sufficient given the 25% cap. No pre-contractual representation altered the terms of the CFA. Costs are to be assessed under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and S(NCB)RO, with fairness and reasonableness determined primarily by time spent and relevant factors under Article 3.

Court Disposition

Costs to be assessed under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and S(NCB)RO; claimant's challenges to the nature of the agreement and alleged breaches dismissed.

Orders

  • Costs assessment to proceed under S(NCB)RO Article 3.
  • No finding that the agreement was a DBA or an NCBA.