Key Facts
- •Ms Forster sued Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP (RPC) for damages due to alleged breaches of duty during and after litigation.
- •The litigation involved a fraudulent misrepresentation claim against Bleasdale and Cariss, resulting in a Tomlin Order awarding Forster £350,000 and 80% of her costs.
- •RPC acted for Forster under a conditional fee agreement (CFA) with a 100% uplift, prioritizing fee recovery.
- •Forster had an ATE policy and a Deacon Funding Agreement, creating conflicts of interest for RPC.
- •The core issue was whether RPC's actions, particularly delays in enforcing the Tomlin Order, caused Forster to lose the opportunity to recover more funds.
- •Forster claimed that RPC varied the CFA priorities or was estopped from relying on them due to assurances given.
Legal Principles
A contract required to be in writing must be varied in writing.
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s.58(3)(a); Greenhouse v Paysafe Financial Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 3296 (Comm)
Solicitors always act in their clients' best interests, unless expressly provided otherwise in the contract.
Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) terms
Estoppel can prevent a party from relying on contractual rights if they made clear assurances that induced reliance.
Case law on promissory estoppel
In assessing loss of a chance, the court considers the real prospect of success and assigns a percentage chance.
Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5; Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602
Outcomes
The court found no contractual variation of the CFA but held RPC estopped from denying Forster's priority claim to £350,000.
RPC's assurances induced Forster's reliance in settling for less. An oral variation of the CFA was ineffective.
RPC breached its duty by failing to inform Forster about escalating costs and the risks to her compensation.
The CFA required RPC to give Forster the best information possible about likely costs. However, this breach did not cause the loss.
RPC breached its duty by failing to adequately advise Forster on the Deacon Funding Agreement and its consequences.
RPC had a conflict of interest by advising both Forster and Deacon. Improper advice led Forster to incur unnecessary interest.
RPC breached its duty by failing to enforce the Tomlin Order according to Forster's instructions.
RPC prioritized its own and Deacon's interests, causing Forster to lose the chance of recovering the £350,000.
Judgment was entered in Forster's favor for £192,500 (55% chance of recovering £350,000).
This represents the value of the lost chance to enforce the Tomlin Order, considering the risks and uncertainties involved.