Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
England and Wales decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court held that a retainer letter and later CFA together formed a retrospective agreement, and that the solicitor had complied with CFA and ATE insurance requirements.
Bray Walker Solicitors (a firm) & Anor v Silvera [2008] EWHC 3147 (QB) (18 December 2008)
High Court held that the CFAs were unenforceable for non-compliance with the CFA Regulations, refusing recovery of the claimants’ basic fees.
Bray Walker Solicitors (a firm) & Anor v Silvera [2008] EWHC 3147 (QB) (18 December 2008)
The High Court held that the claimants’ CFAs complied with the regulations and were enforceable. The defendant’s challenges to transfer, termination, and oral explanation failed.
Dunn v Crescenzo Mici [2008] EWHC 90115 (Costs) (25 June 2008)
The High Court held that a CFA entered for a minor claimant was enforceable because the claimant, not his mother, was the client and received the required advice.
The court held there was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(c) when a CFA was entered into after proportionate enquiries about alternative funding and legal expenses insurance.
Woolley v Haden Building Services Ltd [2008] EWHC 90097 (Costs) (15 February 2008)
The court held there was no breach of Regulation 4(2)(c) in a CFA costs dispute and ordered the detailed assessment to proceed.
The court held that the CFA was unenforceable because the solicitor’s interest in recommending ATE insurance was not properly disclosed in writing, and enquiries about existing insurance were inadequate.
Bevan v Power Panels Electrical Systems Ltd [2007] EWHC 90073 (Costs) (17 May 2007)
The court held that the claimant’s CFA was unenforceable for material breaches of the CFA Regulations, including inadequate written disclosure and insufficient insurance enquiries.
Jenkins v Young Brothers Transport Ltd [2005] EWHC 90008 (Costs) (22 June 2005)
The court held that a CFA was validly assigned between solicitors’ firms and that any failure to repeat CFA regulation warnings was immaterial.
The court held that a CFA was validly assigned between successive solicitors and that any failure to repeat Regulation 4 information was immaterial.
Explore more
