Description
Appeals against orders for disclosure of funding arrangements of unsuccessful personal injury claimants raising the issue of the appropriate circumstances for making a third party costs order against instructed solicitors. Disclosure was sought to determine whether a costs order application was justified on the grounds that the solicitors were a real party due to their funding of the litigation while acting under a condition fee agreement (CFA) in the absence of after the event (ATE) insurance cover.
Held: Costs may have to be the subject of an account to the client as a disbursement but the credit afforded to the client in respect of that cost is part of the service provided by the solicitor. As such, payment of disbursements, without more, does not incur any potential liability to an adverse costs order.
In the present case, it was arguable that the solicitors continued with the litigation without ATE insurance contrary to their client's express instructions and in circumstances where potential costs were not insubstantial, justifying disclosure. That possibility was sufficient to equally justify disclosure in cases conducted at the same time by the same solicitor on a CFA without ATE insurance. Appeals dismissed.
