The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.14 of 2006

Jenkins v Young Brothers Transport Ltd [2006] EWHC 151 (QB);
[2006] 3 Costs LR 495

21 February 2006

Rafferty J (Sitting with Assessors)

The court considered whether a CFA can be validly assigned if the conducting solicitor moves job to a new firm, taking the client but without repeating the consumer protection requirements set out in the CFA Regulations. The Judge expressed the view that:

“The directing motive for Mr Jenkins was his confidence in [his solicitor’s] skill, expertise and professional judgment and that what was put in place was intended to give effect to it … In our judgment it would be a novel approach to the administration of justice were this court to seek on its merits to interfere with the professional relationship as his propriety and worth has never been challenged.”

The materiality test in Hollins v Russell was also considered.