Stephen John Finnan v Candey Ltd
[2024] EWHC 2157 (Ch)
Candey Limited v Stephen Finnan
20 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 3261 (SCCO)
Senior Courts Costs Office
A lawyer and client had a contract about legal fees. The client didn't pay, and the lawyer sued. The judge said the contract was fair, even though it was a little confusing, and the client had to pay what was agreed.
Key Facts
- •Candey Limited (Claimant) sued Mr Stephen Finnan (Defendant) for unpaid fees under a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) dated 6 March 2018.
- •The CFA stipulated a payment of £60,000 + VAT on account, with a further £40,000 + VAT payable upon success in underlying litigation.
- •The Defendant argued the CFA was invalid, unenforceable, or that the payment conditions weren't met.
- •The Claimant sought enforcement of the CFA under Section 61 of the Solicitors Act 1974.
- •A dispute arose regarding the clarity of the claim amount and the potential for additional invoices.
- •The Claimant ultimately withdrew a second invoice and clarified their claim was for £100,000 + VAT, excluding costs of the costs-only proceedings.
Legal Principles
Section 61 of the Solicitors Act 1974 grants the court wide discretion to enforce or set aside contentious business agreements and determine their validity and effect.
Solicitors Act 1974, Section 61
A contentious business agreement (CBA) can take various forms, and the existence of an hourly rate provision doesn't preclude its validity as a CBA.
Acupay System LLC v. Stephenson Harwood LLP SC-2020 APP-00377
For a CFA to be enforceable at common law, it must comply with Section 58(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990.
Oyston v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2006] EWHC 90053 (Costs)
A CFA is not invalid for permitting recovery of a success fee exceeding 100% if the amount payable on success is less than the base costs incurred.
Gloucestershire County Council v Evans and others [2008] EWCA Civ 21
In assessing fairness and reasonableness of a CFA, the court considers the client's sophistication and the clarity of the agreement.
Vilvarajah v West London Law Ltd [2017] EWHC B23 (Costs)
Uncertainty in a CFA, particularly regarding the total amount payable, can render it unenforceable.
Wilson v Specter Partnership and others [2007] EWHC 133 (Ch)
Outcomes
The CFA was deemed valid and enforceable.
The court found no dishonesty, unfairness, or unreasonableness in the agreement. The Defendant possessed sufficient legal knowledge and time to understand the terms. The ambiguity in the claim form did not invalidate the underlying agreement.
The Defendant was ordered to pay the Claimant £100,000 + VAT.
This amount reflects the agreed terms of the CFA, triggered by the settlement in the underlying litigation. The court rejected the Defendant's arguments for reducing or eliminating liability.
A further hearing was scheduled to determine interest, costs of the costs-only proceedings, and the precise payment timeframe.
The court noted procedural issues with the claim presentation, necessitating further clarification on these outstanding matters.