Judgment has been reserved in a case where national law firm Slater and Gordon is defending against a claim that its personal injury conditional fee agreements may not be enforceable due to an ‘effective contractual cap’. The hearing took place before costs judge Rowley at the Royal Courts of Justice and focused on preliminary points of dispute in test claims aiming to assess bills submitted by the firm. The claimants argue that the charges imposed are unjust.
During the five-day hearing, only four out of the 10 test claimants provided evidence. The judge made a decision not to accept evidence from absent claimants as they could not be cross-examined. In his closing statements, Roger Mallalieu KC, representing the claimants, criticized the evidence presented by Slater and Gordon, stating that it was inconsequential, unreliable, and lacking in substance. The firm’s sole witness was deemed to have insufficient evidence to contribute significantly to the case.
Mallalieu further argued that the claimants felt pressured to sign the claim documents and that the explanations provided about the conditional fee agreement were insufficient. He emphasized the likelihood of reaching the fee cap under the CFA due to various factors, challenging the validity of the agreements.
On the other side, Robert Marven KC, representing Slater and Gordon, defended the firm by asserting that the agreements in question were indeed CFAs and complied with the statutory definition. He contended that capping charges based on a percentage of damages was permissible under the CFA regime and that the claimants were aware of the terms they agreed to. Marven stated that even if the agreements were deemed DBAs, they would still be enforceable and reasonable.
He highlighted that the claimants had the option to seek further clarification, more time, or cancel the agreements within a specific period but chose not to do so. Marven concluded that it would be inaccurate to claim that the charges were unfair or unreasonable.
The judgment on this matter has been reserved, awaiting further deliberation. In a related context, the legal industry continues to face challenges and reviews, such as the ongoing analysis of the whiplash tariff. These developments underscore the complexities and nuances within legal agreements and fee structures. The outcome of this case will likely have implications for similar cases in the future, affecting how CFAs are perceived and enforced within the legal framework.
