 |
|
|
 |
| <
back |
Monday 6th November 2006
Keith Lewis James White v Mark Peter Revell (2006) QBD (Leeds) (Master Wright) 8/9/2006
KEITH LEWIS JAMES WHITE v MARK PETER REVELL (2006) QBD (Leeds) (Master Wright) 8/9/2006
The court was required to determine in costs proceedings whether a conditional fee agreement (CFA) between the claimant (W) and his solicitors was enforceable. W had entered into a CFA with his solicitors in relation to a claim against the defendant (R) for personal injuries that W had suffered in a motor vehicle accident. The solicitors initially acted for W in the matter on a conventional privately funded basis under a retainer. W had previously engaged other solicitors who were approved by his insurers with whom he had legal expenses insurance. W's claim was settled but the issue of costs remained outstanding. In correspondence between the parties a dispute arose as to whether the procedure that W’s solicitors had adopted to determine the existence of legal expenses insurance, or before-the-event insurance that W had been entitled to, was adequate and as to whether the CFA funding was actually discussed with W or that he was adequately advised. R contended that there had been a failure by W's solicitors to comply with the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulations 2000 Reg.4(1) generally and Reg.4(2)(c) specifically
HELD: The guidance given in previous authorities as to the steps a solicitor should reasonably take to discharge his obligations under Reg.4(2)(c) was neither rigid nor exhaustive, Garrett v Halton BC (2006) EWCA Civ 1017 , Times, July 18, 2006 considered. However given the circumstances in which W’s solicitors were instructed and the nature of the claim it was reasonable for W’s solicitors to have dealt with the matter as they did. W had been asked if he had any relevant policies. W was an articulate and educated professional and in the circumstances his solicitors were entitled to accept his statement that he had no such insurance cover. The nature of the claim was such that legal expenses insurance would have to have had very substantial cover for costs and disbursements. The CFA funding was sufficiently discussed with W and he was adequately advised.
Judgment for claimant.
Counsel:
For the claimant: Gordon Wignall
For the defendant: Simon Browne
Solicitors:
For the claimant: Irwin Mitchell
For the defendant: Rollingsons
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
Would
you like to receive our quarterly newsletter.
It's available by post or email, and contains all the latest
Kain Knight and industry news.
click
here to register |
|
| |
|
|
|
