2. Hollins –v- Russell 1 WLR 2487

In determining whether a departure from total compliance with any of the C.F.A. Regulations amounts to a breach of those Regulations, the Court should consider whether in all these circumstances the departure has a materially adverse effect either upon the protection afforded to the client or upon the proper administration of Justice.

3. Myler & Mirror Group Newspapers –v- Williams (203) 4 Costs LR 566

Crane J held that the provision within the C.F.A. for an uplift of between 25% and 75% for care and conduct etc., was not by itself a departure from the Regulations and not was the failure to specify how the annual review would be made.

4. Spencer –v- Wood (2004) ECA civ 352

The Solicitors fail to specify the fee deferment element in the C.F.A. was held to be a material departure from the Regulations and therefore no profit costs or unpaid disbursements were payable by the opposing party.

5. Ku –v- Liverpool City Council (2005) EWCA Civ 475

The Court of Appeal held that the Court had no power to apply a variable Success Fee for different parts of the action and that the Success Fee applied throughout to include the costs of Assessment.

It was also held that the Practice Direction giving the Court power to apply a variable Success Fee was not applicable.

6. Are your Costs for advising and preparing C.F.A. and A.T.E. proposals forms recoverable inter-parties?
Refer to Rashid Ghannouchi v Houni Limited and Others. This Case Law refers to a decision of Cost Judge Seager-Berry allowing work associated with dealing with C.F.A. and E.T.A. arrangements inter-partes.