header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
21 May 2009
Issue: 7370 / Categories: Features , Public , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Back to the future

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll