Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
In the case of Stevensdrake Ltd v Stephen Hunt & Ors  EWHC 1527 (Ch) the High Court has dismissed an appeal in which a liquidator of a company sought to avoid being personally liable for success fees (or uplifts) and counsel's fees pursuant to a conditional fee arrangement (CFA). The terms of the CFA were plain in that if the liquidator won his claim (as he did in accordance with the definition of 'win' in the schedule), he would pay the basic charges, disbursements and success fee of the solicitors. The CFA went on to say that the liquidator was 'personally liable for any payments' that he may have to make' under the agreement. The court rejected the liquidator's argument that he was not the client and it was in fact the company: the contractual provisions of the CFA which he had signed were clear. As such, summary judgment and an order for an interim payment of £75,000 in respect of these costs stood.
What does this mean in practice?
This case involved a 'battle of the forms' type scenario. The liquidator had tried to rely on a retainer letter and correspondence that pre-dated the CFA which referred to fees and disbursements being paid out of recoveries only. However, this was contrary to, and had no bearing on, the final contractual position to which he had agreed whereby he was personally liable for payments, and not limited to the funds available in the liquidation.
Until the implementation of costs reforms in April 2013, success fees in a CFA (such as this one signed in 2008) were recoverable from the losing party. However, in insolvencies, as in this case, the other side may be a debtor who hasn't paid becau
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234