header-logo header-logo

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

Back to the future

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll