0370 270 6000

Woods v Chaleff, Supreme Court SCCO

7 June 2002
The issues

Costs – Conditional Fee Agreements – Enforceability

The facts

This was a libel action. Those acting for the Claimant were acting under a CFA. The Defendant/paying party argued that the CFA was unenforceable because it breached the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 1995 which was the relevant provision at the time. The Claimant/receiving party argued that technical breaches should not render the agreements unenforceable. Specifically the agreement failed to state the amount payable or the method used to calculate that amount. It did not state whether or not the amount payable was limited by reference to the amount of damages recoverable nor did it state that the matters listed in the regulations had been explained to the client.

The decision

1. If a statutory instrument laid down expressed provisions to be complied with, failure to comply made the agreement unenforceable.

2. No sums would be payable in respect of the Solicitors’ Bill of Costs.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up