The cost-assessment saga, in which an applicant has moved from public funding to a conditional pricing agreement, has been discussed several times on this blog. All of these issues are now dealt with in The Judgment of Mr. Justice Foskett in Surrey -v- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust.  EWHC […] If, after March 31, 2013, personal representatives have “a new conditional pricing agreement,” the pass tax does not appear to be reimbursed by the other party, as it is a “new” agreement after March 31, 2013. In the third scenario, in which the client simply wants to move without trust in his existing lawyer (Scenario 2) or without a business without moving the client (Scenario 1), I think the court may find much less often that there is a legitimate mission. The assignment does not create new rights, but transfers the existing rights of a contract from a party, the assignee, to a new party, the assignee, who can enforce the rights without the consent of the original party. During the review of the transfer of the CFAs, this occurred when the rights of a former law firm were transferred to a new law firm, so that the CFA would continue. If this is not possible, the former company should be used as the temporary trade name of part of the new merged entity/entity to carry out the relevant business. A change of ownership of the business does not in itself have any influence on the right to costs.
If it were otherwise, every time a partner retired or a new partner entered into the partnership, all the work done so far under a conditional pricing agreement would be irremediable. Point 1 is under seal to defeat any argument about the lack of consideration, since it is not necessary to take into account in an act under the seal, the point is that, on the face of it, the succession is not taken into account; It could go somewhere else and start all over again. The idea may be the agreement of the lawyers familiar with the case, but the work already done, for which there is no legal obligation to pay, is clearly over and the past coercion – no consideration. Obviously, if the other party, which is the customer, is true, then there is no problem, but then it can do what looks like a task in a novation. The Court objected to the invocation of the “conditional benefit principle” – essentially an exception to the general rule that the burden of a contract cannot be attributed to human services. On the contrary, the Court held that if the client`s move from one company to another was motivated by the personal trust and confidence of a certain lawyer, that would suffice to justify the exception that the burden (and therefore, in this case, the CFA) could be awarded. In such cases, there is no power to grant the conditional agreement. However, it seems to me that, if the chosen action can be attributed, then the retainers, which is inevitably parasitic over the elected, must also be able to attribute. Another problem is that under the common law, there cannot be a transfer of a personal contract and that a legal advice contract is a classic example of such a contract. Again, one wonders how this proposal can be done with the reality of a world of demand in which many companies never see their client and where customers and business are considered mere commodities, the client having no more importance to his lawyer than a bag of corn. Although the facts of the case meant that there were in fact no different simultaneous agreements, the Forde/Birmingham City Council high court recognized the concept of simultaneous pricing agreements  1 WLR 2732. In Forde/Birmingham City Council  EWHC 12 (QB), the High Court made the second of the two conditional pricing agreements valid and enforceable, when it was retroactive and the post-deadline was before November 1, 2005, when it was a very different and much stricter regime.