header-logo header-logo

03 February 2011
Issue: 7451 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Solicitor—Costs—Conditional fee agreement

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

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