Cunningham v Fegan & Anor [2015] NIQB 14 (19 February 2015)

Cunningham v Fegan & Anor [2015] NIQB 14 (19 February 2015)

There was no sustainable basis for striking out the defendants' notice of intention to defend; discovery should have been considered but was rendered unnecessary by subsequent disclosure. The costs order in favour of the defendants in the county court should remain, as the fee arrangement was contrary to public policy at the relevant time, but retrospective agreements do not necessarily cure the defect for costs purposes.

Citation
[2015] NIQB 14
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: June Cunningham; Defendant/respondent: Seanna Fegan; Defendant/respondent: Irene Fegan
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
19 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Costs
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conditional Fee Arrangements, Discovery, Costs, Solicitor Client Relationship
Civil Procedure Public Policy Conditional Fee Arrangements Discovery Costs Solicitor Client Relationship

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

June Cunningham

Plaintiff/appellant

Seanna Fegan

Defendant/respondent

Irene Fegan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants' notice of intention to defend should be struck out due to a fee arrangement contrary to public policy
  2. 2 Whether discovery of documents relating to fee arrangements should have been ordered
  3. 3 Appropriate order as to costs given public policy concerns

Ratio Decidendi

There was no sustainable basis for striking out the defendants' notice of intention to defend; discovery should have been considered but was rendered unnecessary by subsequent disclosure. The costs order in favour of the defendants in the county court should remain, as the fee arrangement was contrary to public policy at the relevant time, but retrospective agreements do not necessarily cure the defect for costs purposes.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No order as to costs of the appeal
  • County court costs order in favour of defendants affirmed