Forde v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 90105
Posted by Andrew on 9 December, 2008 - 20:05 in
This was a housing repair matter where the Claimant had entered into 2 CFAs, the 1st on 16/03/05 and the 2nd on 05/04/06.
The Defendant submitted that neither CFA was enforceable in light of undue influence on the Claimant, the absence of consideration for the 2nd CFA and retrospectivity.
It was found that the 1st CFA was terminated and replaced by the 2nd CFA and that the 2nd CFA was enforceable and retrospective (it covered work undertaken from the date of the 1st CFA). It was reasonable for the Claimant to enter into the 2nd CFA and there was found to be no undue influence on the Claimant.
Therefore, the Claimant could recover (subject to assessment) the base costs claimed in the 2nd CFA but without a success fee.
