0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

R Factortame Limited & Others v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (number 8), Court of Appeal

9 July 2002
The issues

Expert evidence – contingency fee – expert having financial interest – champerty.

The facts

Grant Thornton, a firm of Accountants, entered into an agreement in July 1998 with the Claimant’s Factortame Limited, whereby Grant Thornton advised Factortame in connection with litigation in return for 8% of the damages. The issue arose as to whether or not that contract was champertous and therefore unenforceable.

The decision

1. The Court considered the decision in Field -v- Leeds City Council (Surveyor employed by City Council allowed to give evidence in a housing disrepair claim against tenants who sued the City Council) with approval and Liverpool Roman Catholic Arch Diocesan Trustees -v- Goldberg (expert called on behalf of a party who was a long-standing friend), in which latter case, they believed the Judge had fallen into error in taking the view that he had necessarily to exclude the expert evidence.

2. In any individual case, it was necessary to see if the agreement tended to conflict with public policy and in particular, with regard to the interests of the Defendant. Conditional Fee Agreements were now permitted by Section 58 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and as amended by the Access to Justice Act 1999. That Section did not apply to the provision of services which were ancillary to the conduct of litigation. However, it was an indication of a radical shift in public policy. Conditional fees were permitted to increase access to justice. They were aimed at ensuring that those without resources could fund claims which deserved to be funded.

3. For an expert to act on a contingency basis, was to give the expert a significant financial interest in the case. Such an interest generally was highly undesirable and it would be rare that the Court would consent to an expert being instructed under a Contingency Fee Agreement.

4. In this case, Grant Thornton had not acted as experts but had funded independent experts. Having regard to that fact, and the shift in public policy and the fact that liability had already been decided when Grant Thornton were instructed and that they had had no part to play on the issue of liability before the House of Lords, the agreement was not in these circumstances champertous.

5. Where there was doubt as to the status of evidence, the issue should be presented to the Court at Case Management and at the earliest possible stage so that if expert evidence was to be excluded, any further necessary Directions could be given.

Comments

Experts tempted by Contingency Fee Agreements should beware the words of the Court of Appeal%u2026 “%u2026 the threat to his objectivity posed by a Contingency Fee Agreement may carry greater dangers to the administration of justice than would the interest of an Advocate or Solicitor acting under a similar agreement. Accordingly, we consider that it will be in a very rare case indeed that the Court will be prepared to consent to an expert being instructed under a Contingency Fee Agreement”.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).

View

Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.

View

Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.

View

Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.

View

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