Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO) (17 January 2025)

Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO) (17 January 2025)

The agreement between the claimant and defendant was a CFA, not a DBA or a valid NCBA. The agreement did not fall within the DBA regime or its regulatory requirements, and the claimant's arguments regarding enforceability under the DBA regime failed. The defendant was not required to offer or advise on DBAs if not offered by the firm, and the information provided, while not the best possible, was sufficient to comply with regulatory requirements. The agreement was not unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The proper method of assessment is under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and the S(NCB)RO, focusing on time spent and reasonableness, with no special factors justifying a departure from...

Citation
[2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Ryan Perrett; Defendant: Wolferstans LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Costs Assessment (solicitors Act 1974, S70) / Preliminary Issues Judgment on Points of Dispute
Outcome
Claimant's challenges to the nature and enforceability of the retainer dismissed; assessment to proceed under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and S(NCB)RO.
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa), Damages Based Agreements (dba), Solicitors' Remuneration, Solicitors Regulation Authority (sra) Code of Conduct, Consumer Rights Act 2015, Non Contentious Business Agreements, Assessment of Costs
Costs Law Contract Law Professional Regulation Conditional Fee Agreements (cfa) Damages Based Agreements (dba) Solicitors' Remuneration Solicitors Regulation Authority (sra) Code of Conduct Consumer Rights Act 2015 +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Ryan Perrett

Claimant

Wolferstans LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Costs Assessment (solicitors Act 1974, S70) / Preliminary Issues Judgment on Points of Dispute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the retainer between claimant and defendant was a CFA, DBA, or non-contentious business agreement (NCBA)
  2. 2 Whether the agreement complied with statutory and regulatory requirements for enforceability
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached the SRA Code of Conduct in failing to advise on alternative funding or provide best possible information

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement between the claimant and defendant was a CFA, not a DBA or a valid NCBA. The agreement did not fall within the DBA regime or its regulatory requirements, and the claimant's arguments regarding enforceability under the DBA regime failed. The defendant was not required to offer or advise on DBAs if not offered by the firm, and the information provided, while not the best possible, was sufficient to comply with regulatory requirements. The agreement was not unfair under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The proper method of assessment is under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and the S(NCB)RO, focusing on time spent and reasonableness, with no special factors justifying a departure from...

Court Disposition

Claimant's challenges to the nature and enforceability of the retainer dismissed; assessment to proceed under s70 Solicitors Act 1974 and S(NCB)RO.

Orders

  • Agreement is a CFA, not a DBA or valid NCBA.
  • No breach of SRA Code of Conduct requiring invalidation of agreement.