The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.11 of 2006

Holmes v Alfred McAlpine Homes (Yorkshire) Ltd [2006] EWHC 110 (QB);
[2006] 3 Costs LR 466

7 February 2006

Stanley Burnton J (Sitting with Assessors)

The court considered whether the claimant’s CFA had been rendered unenforceable by his solicitors’ failure to comply with Regulations 4(2)(a) and 4(3) of the CFA Regulations 2000.

The Judge held that the backdating of the CFA did not involve a material breach of the Regulations, nor had there been a breach of the Regulations in relation to the inclusion of the success fee. However at paragraph 23 he said this:

“I would emphasise, however, that the backdating of documents as was done in this case is generally wrong. It is wrong to seek to give an agreement retrospective effect by backdating it. If it is agreed that a written agreement should apply to work before it is entered into, it should be correctly dated with the date on which it is signed and expressed to have retrospective effect, ie to apply to work done before its date.”