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

Forgotten your password?

Hughes v Others and Newham London Borough Council, Supreme Court Costs Office, 28 July 2005

6 September 2005
The issues

Conditional Fee Agreement – Availability of Alternative Funding – Enforceability – Legal Services Funding – Housing Disrepair Claim

The facts

The Claimants brought housing disrepair claims against the Defendant local authority. The Claimants were represented by the same firm of solicitors. The solicitors wrongly advised the Claimants that they were not able to get Legal Aid because they would be unlikely to get past the cost/benefit test.

Consequently the Claimants entered into Conditional Fee Agreements with their solicitors. The claims settled and the Claimants awarded their costs in each case. Matters proceeded to Detailed Assessment. The Defendant argued that the CFA’s were unenforceable because the Claimants had never been informed properly of the availability of Legal Aid.

The decision

1. The Claimant’s solicitors were required under the Conditional Fee Agreements Regulation 2000 (regulation 4 (2) (d) to advise them of the availability of alternative funding.

2. That failure had a materially adverse effect upon the protection afforded to the Claimants. See Hollins v Russell. It was not enough for a Claimant to be told about Legal Aid or alternative funding if there were accompanying words which sought to discourage the client from pursuing that possibility. The burden on the solicitors was to put the client’s interests first. The advice given that legal advice was not available or was unlikely to be available was bad advice. At the time the cases were taken on the prospects of success did not appear unclear or borderline or poor.

3. As a result of the breach the CFA was unenforceable and the local authorities’ liability for costs would relate solely to paid disbursements and any costs of the assessment allowed.

Focus on...

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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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