0370 270 6000

C v M

14 March 2003
The issues

Costs – CFA – Conditional Fee Agreement

The facts

The Claimant had a personal injury claim relating to depression and bullying at work. He obtained an Order for costs and sought a success fee. In 1995, he had entered into a CFA. In 1999 he instructed new Solicitors bringing an end to the previous CFA. In October 2000, he instructed a third firm and entered into two CFA’s, the first in October 2000 and the second in January 2001. The Defendant argued that no success fee could be claimed on the basis of the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Transitional Provisions) Order 1999.

The decision

1. The 1999 Order stated clearly that a successful Claimant could not recover a success fee after the 1st April 2000 if in those proceedings the Claimant had entered into a prior CFA before that date.

2. This was the case here. It did not matter whether or not that earlier CFA was still in force.

Claimant’s Appeal dismissed

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