Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 20 OCTOBER 2017

When A CFA Says One Thing And Means Another

In Stevensdrake v Stephen Hunt [2017] EWCA Civ 1173 (31 July 2017) the Court of Appeal considered the application of contractual principles to a Conditional Fee Agreement ("CFA")...

United KingdomLaw Practice Management

In a nutshell

In Stevensdrake v Stephen Hunt [2017] EWCA Civ 1173 (31 July 2017) the Court of Appeal considered the application of contractual principles to a Conditional Fee Agreement ("CFA") between a Solicitor and his liquidator Client.

The CFA expressly provided that the Solicitor's costs and disbursements were payable if the claim succeeded. The claim succeeded by settlement and the Solicitor sued for his fees. The Client argued that in reality he was only liable to pay the Solicitor's fees out of recoveries. To use costs parlance, he argued that the CFA was in reality a "CFA light", and as there were no further recoveries, there was no further liability. The Court of Appeal agreed, upholding the first instance decision, but for different reasons.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from