header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
03 February 2011
Issue: 7451 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Solicitor—Costs—Conditional fee agreement

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Morris and another v Southwark London Borough Council (Law Society intervening) [2011] All ER (D) 183 (Jan), [2011] EWCA Civ 25

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lord Neuberger MR, Lloyd and Gross LJJ, 25 Jan 2011

A conditional fee agreement (CFA) providing for the claimant’s solicitors to indemnify her against payment of the defendant’s costs if the claim was dismissed is not champertous or otherwise contrary to public policy. It will therefore not invalidate a CFA which otherwise complies with s 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.

Mark James (instructed by Belshaw & Curtin) for the claimants. Roger Mallalieu (instructed by Director of Communities Law and Governance, London Borough of Southwark) for the authority.  David Holland (instructed by the Law Society) for the interveners.

Two appeals before the court arose out of claims by residential tenants against the local authority landlord concerning alleged breaches of the landlord’s covenant. The claimants entered into a contract of engagement, which was a CFA with a 10% success fee. It also included the statement that: “If

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