Legal Issues in Global Energy Horizons Corporation v The Winros Partnership: Assessing Solicitors' Bills, Conditional Fee Agreements, and Abuse of Process.

Citation: [2024] EWHC 441 (SCCO)
Judgment on


The case of Global Energy Horizons Corporation v The Winros Partnership presents several intricate legal issues concerning the detailed assessment of solicitors’ bills, conditional fee agreements (CFAs), and the principles of abuse of process. Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker provided a comprehensive judgment addressing objections raised regarding the enforceability of costs under various CFAs, the retrospective charge of work done outside the scope of the initial CFA, and the reasonableness of postponement success fees.

Key Facts

Global Energy Horizons Corporation (the Claimant) was represented by the Winros Partnership (the Defendant) in a litigation (the Gray action), under three successive CFAs. The relationship between the parties soured after the litigation yielded less success than anticipated and disputes over the entitlement of payment under the CFAs. The main contentions revolved around the Defendant’s bills after termination of the retainers and the applicability of success fees.

Abuse of Process

The principle from Henderson v Henderson was pivotal to the discussion on whether the Claimant could raise a new objection (Objection 1) at the detailed assessment stage. The court applied Lord Bingham’s guidance from Johnson v Gore Wood to determine whether raising the objection constituted an abuse of process, as it should have been raised earlier. The court considered various factors, including the nature of solicitor-client assessments, timing of raising objections, and the presence or absence of judicial decisions on the issues.

Conditional Fee Agreements

The case involved examining the applicability of conditional fee agreements (CFAs) post-termination of a retainer. The court differentiated between ‘entire contracts’ and conditional agreements using principles from Underwood, Son & Piper v Lewis and Richard Buxton v Mills-Owen, where solicitors could claim costs for work done up to termination if it was for a good reason. The court also considered the decision in Howes Percival LLP v Page, where it was held that, in cases of conditional rights to payment, damages for a loss of chance might be applicable instead of a quantum meruit.

Retrospective Charging and Success Fees

For work done outside the scope of the initial CFA (Objections 6 and 7), the court applied Radford v Frade to address the difficulty in implying retainer obligations that the client had not agreed to. The principles of reasonable charging under CFAs and the presumption of reasonableness in CPR 46.9 were also discussed. The court considered whether retrospective conditional fee agreements and the associated success fees were reasonable.


  • Objection 1 (Abuse of Process): Dismissed - the court did not view it as an abuse of process for the Claimant to raise new objections at the detailed assessment stage.
  • Objection 3 (Entitlement to Payment for Certain Periods): Dismissed - the Defendant was entitled to payment for work done in the specified period as it fell under the scope of CFA 2.
  • Objections 6 and 7 (Work Done Outside CFA 1’s Scope): The Defendant could charge under CFA 2 for work done before its inception outside CFA 1’s scope, but the Claimant was not liable for the success fees on that work due to the presumptions in CPR 46.9(3)(c).
  • Postponement Success Fees: Deemed unreasonable - the Claimant should not have to pay success fees for the deferment of payment given the substantial advance payments made under CFA 1 and CFA 2.


Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker’s judgment in Global Energy Horizons Corporation v The Winros Partnership provides clarity on several aspects of detailed cost assessments and the enforcement of CFAs after the termination of retainers. The decision navigates through the nuanced principles of abuse of process, upholding the requirement that objections should be raised at the earliest practical juncture, while also taking into account the complexities arising within continuous proceedings. In addition, the ruling underscores the importance of clear communication between solicitors and clients regarding the scope of work and the reasonableness of success fees.

Related Summaries