The Supreme Court Costs Office

No.10 of 2007

Harrington v Wakeling [2007] EWHC 1184 (Ch)

18 May 2007

Mann J

Harrington, a liquidator, succeeded in proceedings against Wakeling to set aside a legal charge, with costs. His predecessor, Jones, had instructed Connolly’s, solicitors. Harrington disputed Connolly’s fees. Terms were agreed whereby Connollys would seek no further fees from Harrington, and any further money the firm recovered would be from Wakeling. On detailed assessment, Wakeling argued that the argument between Harrington and Connollys was an unenforceable CFA and he had no liability for costs under the indemnity principle.

Mann J held that, taken as a whole, the effect of the agreement was that the primary liability between Harringtons and Connollys would not be enforced and that any further recovery would be confined to a particular asset (viz Wakeley’s assets) (judgment paragraph 10). Moreover, the agreement was not a contingency fee agreement, so as to make it unenforceable. An agreement under which the solicitor’s fees in an action and to which he will become entitled in the future only if something fortunate occurs in the action, is legally objectionable. That was not the case here. At the date of the agreement, the result was known. All the fees (whatever they might be) had become payable. Accordingly the agreement did not amount to a void contingency agreement.