Solicitor’s retainer not frustrated because client loses capacity, appeal judges rule


RCJ

Richards LJ: “Commonplace” for clients to give instructions via agents

A solicitor’s retainer is not rendered “impossible of performance” simply because a claimant loses mental capacity and cannot give instructions personally, the Court of Appeal ruled today.

Upholding the High Court’s ruling this time last year, Lord Justice Richards said it was “commonplace” for clients to give instructions through agents, such as accountants or spouses.

The court heard that Diann Blankley lost capacity, regained it and then lost it again during a clinical negligence claim.

Richards LJ said that in the case of Ms Blankley, the parties “must have contemplated” that there would be a further period of incapacity where instructions would be given by a litigation friend or deputy.

“The fact that supervening incapacity prevented the claimant from giving instructions personally did not render the contract of retainer impossible of performance,” he said.

“It simply gave rise to a short period of delay pending appointment of a receiver/deputy who could continue the conduct of the proceedings on the claimant’s behalf and give instructions to the solicitors for that purpose.”

Delivering judgment in Blankley v Manchester NHS Trust [2015] EWCA Civ 18, Richards LJ said that if the claimant was under an obligation to give instructions personally, and later lost capacity, the situation would have been covered by the express terms of the conditional fee agreement (CFA).

He explained that this entitled the solicitors in that situation to terminate the contract and demand payment of their basic charges.

Richards LJ said the “unattractiveness of such a result” was “further indication that it cannot have been the intention of the parties that the claimant had to give instructions personally”.

The lord justice said he agreed with the reasons given by the High Court for concluding that the CFA was not frustrated.

He dismissed the NHS trust’s appeal. Lord Justice McCombe and Lady Justice Sharp agreed.

Sue Nash, chairman of the Association of Costs Lawyers, commented: “This is a common sense decision that recognises the practicalities of the situation where a client loses capacity.

“It will lead to swifter access to justice in that there will be no need to enter into a further funding arrangement and it should also avoid further satellite litigation.”

Tags:




    Readers Comments

  • Finola Moss says:

    The Mental Capacity Act is the most dangerous, draconian act ever passed.

    Read my blog post Mental Capacity and Removal by googling finolamoss.

    There are no safeguards on the assessment of capacity, it is in secret, and often those assessing indirectly gain from it.

    This decision facilitates such assessments, and shows the trend against individual autonomy, and state control.


Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

18 October 2018
Claire Stockford

An analogue decision? Google defeats attempt at consumer ‘class action’

In an eagerly awaited judgment, the High Court handed down its ruling in Richard Lloyd v Google LLC on 8 October. It seems clear that there is a degree of reluctance to permit group litigation which will not materially benefit consumers. That being said, it is hard to ignore the increased possibilities of group litigation in the context of corporate data breaches, particularly following the implementation of GDPR earlier this year.

Read More