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

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

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