header-logo header-logo

Cash & carry loses costs ambiguity appeal

20 March 2025
Issue: 8109 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Commercial
printer mail-detail
A conditional fee agreement (CFA) can have retrospective effect even though this is not spelled out, the Court of Appeal has held

Singh and others v Ingram [2025] EWCA Civ 264 concerned litigation begun in 2015 by Ingram, in his capacity as liquidator of MSD Cash and Carry, against Singh and others, who are former directors of MSD. The High Court had found the directors sought to diminish the assets available to the liquidator and ordered them to pay Ingram’s costs on an indemnity basis. This decision was not appealed. However, the assessment of those costs became highly contentious, including on the issue of whether the CFA between Ingram and his solicitors Boyes Turner was retrospective.

The relevant clause in the CFA stated the client would be liable to pay the firm ‘the basic charges’ if successful. The ‘basic charges’ were defined as work done in relation to the ‘claim’. The ‘claim’ was defined as the application by the client (Ingram) as liquidator against the defendant in relation to MSD ‘in liquidation in respect of which the firm has been engaged since 30 March 2012’.

The High Court held the clause was expressly retrospective. The appellant argued the term was not express, clear or unambiguous as regards its retrospectivity, and the judge failed to take into account or give proper weight to the ‘matrix of fact’ which ‘included clear evidence that the signatories to the CFA had no commercial imperative to sign a retrospective CFA’ and that there was a lack of advice by the solicitor as to retrospectivity.

Delivering the main judgment, however, Lord Justice Coulson dismissed the appeal.

Andrew Warnock KC and Gurion Taussig, of Deka Chambers, acting for Ingram, said Coulson LJ found ‘that on literal construction the clause was plainly expressly retrospective.

‘He emphasised the principle that a retrospectivity clause in a CFA requires no set formulation. Further and significantly, the court stated obiter, that it could see no reason why, as a matter of general principle, a retrospectivity term could not be implied into a CFA, provided the necessary test for implication had been established’.

Issue: 8109 / Categories: Legal News , Costs , Commercial
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—trainee cohort

Birketts—trainee cohort

Firm welcomes new cohort of 29 trainee solicitors for 2025

Keoghs—four appointments

Keoghs—four appointments

Four partner hires expand legal expertise in Scotland and Northern Ireland

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Brabners—Ben Lamb

Real estate team in Yorkshire welcomes new partner

NEWS
Robert Taylor of 360 Law Services warns in this week's NLJ that adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) risks entrenching disadvantage for SME law firms, unless tools are tailored to their needs
The Court of Protection has ruled in Macpherson v Sunderland City Council that capacity must be presumed unless clearly rebutted. In this week's NLJ, Sam Karim KC and Sophie Hurst of Kings Chambers dissect the judgment and set out practical guidance for advisers faced with issues relating to retrospective capacity and/or assessments without an examination
Delays and dysfunction continue to mount in the county court, as revealed in a scathing Justice Committee report and under discussion this week by NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School. Bulk claims—especially from private parking firms—are overwhelming the system, with 8,000 cases filed weekly
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve charts the turbulent progress of the Employment Rights Bill through the House of Lords, in this week's NLJ
From oligarchs to cosmetic clinics, strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs) target journalists, activists and ordinary citizens with intimidating legal tactics. Writing in NLJ this week, Sadie Whittam of Lancaster University explores the weaponisation of litigation to silence critics
back-to-top-scroll