header-logo header-logo

Back to the future

21 May 2009
Issue: 7370 / Categories: Features , Public , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

The costs team at Kings Chambers warns against the dangers of overlooking past regulations

Many personal injury practitioners will be aware that paying parties are now arguing that certain consumer regulations apply to contracts of retainer. Contravention of those regulations can result in contracts to which they apply being unenforceable (and, in some circumstances, can also amount to a criminal offence). What seems not to have been fully appreciated is the fact that the regulations are not limited to those which have come into force only recently, but also include regulations which have already been in force for over 20 years.

Put bluntly, the profession seems to have overlooked those regulations, and there is a real risk that this means that many contracts of retainer are unenforceable. Solicitors with contracts of retainer that are at risk ought to consider whether they need to enter into retrospective agreements to avoid difficulties arising out of the indemnity principle.

This article makes no attempt to describe the regulations in detail or to explain how the regulations ought

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Winckworth Sherwood—Tim Foley

Property litigation practice strengthened by partner hire

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

Kingsley Napley—Romilly Holland

International arbitration team specialist joins the team

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Red Lion Chambers—Maurice MacSweeney

Set creates new client and business development role amid growth

NEWS
The rank of King’s Counsel (KC) has been awarded to 96 barristers, and no solicitors, in the latest silk round
Neurotechnology is poised to transform contract law—and unsettle it. Writing in NLJ this week, Harry Lambert, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers and founder of the Centre for Neurotechnology & Law, and Dr Michelle Sharpe, barrister at the Victorian Bar, explore how brain–computer interfaces could both prove and undermine consent
Comparators remain the fault line of discrimination law. In this week's NLJ, Anjali Malik, partner at Bellevue Law, and Mukhtiar Singh, barrister at Doughty Street Chambers, review a bumper year of appellate guidance clarifying how tribunals should approach ‘actual’ and ‘evidential’ comparators. A new six-stage framework stresses a simple starting point: identify the treatment first
In cross-border divorces, domicile can decide everything. In NLJ this week, Jennifer Headon, legal director and head of international family, Isobel Inkley, solicitor, and Fiona Collins, trainee solicitor, all at Birketts LLP, unpack a Court of Appeal ruling that re-centres nuance in jurisdiction disputes. The court held that once a domicile of choice is established, the burden lies on the party asserting its loss
Can a chief constable be held responsible for disobedient officers? Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth, professor of public law at De Montfort University, examines a Court of Appeal ruling that answers firmly: yes
back-to-top-scroll