header-logo header-logo

Jones result: CFAs can be assigned

12 May 2016
Issue: 7699 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

​Court rules that assignment of CFAs does not breach the indemnity principle

A conditional fee agreement (CFA) can be assigned, a court has held, in a decision that will affect thousands of cases.

Ruling in the county court at Liverpool in Jones v Spire Healthcare (App No 96/2015) last week, Judge Graham Wood QC held that an insolvent firm of solicitors can validly assign its entitlement and responsibility under a CFA with a client to another firm of solicitors.

If they were not able to do so, Judge Wood said, then potentially recoverable costs would be “lost forever…to the disadvantage of any creditor in the administration, and to the advantage of an opposing party who might escape a substantial liability for costs in the event of losing the case”.

The case arose after well-known Midlands law firm Barnetts went into administration in 2013, and its CFA personal injury cases were bought by SGI Legal. A deed of assignment was drafted by specialist counsel. The claimant in Jones signed a separate deed of assignment and eventually settled her case for £17,500. Last year, a county court judge ruled that personal contracts could not be assigned under common law.

Hannah Riordan, associate at law firm Clarion, says: “Sitting at the County Court at Liverpool, HHJ Wood ruled that DJ Jenkinson was wrong to construe the ‘Jenkins exception’ to the rule against CFA assignment, so narrowly as to only apply where a client loyally follows an individual fee earner from one firm to another.

“Given that most modern day case handling is conducted at a distance, such circumstances would often be too difficult to prove. This judgment means that assignment of CFAs does not breach the indemnity principle, and will result in a valid retainer, allowing recovery of both pre-and post-assignment costs.”

NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan, of City University, says: “In a decision affecting thousands of cases where costs run into the millions, it has been held that one can lawfully assign a CFA.

“The practical upshot is that a newly appointed solicitor can take the benefit of the original agreement. Thus, costs and a recoverable success fee will accrue.”

Issue: 7699 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll