A technical take on war

It would seem that City firm Beachcroft Wansbroughs did not take at all well the senior costs judge's ruling in its case, Ahmed v Powell (see [2003] Gazette, 27 February, page 1), which dealt a major blow to the insurance industry's use of costs negotiators to batter down claimant solicitors' costs.

The press release from Beachcrofts, presumably approved by Andrew Parker, former president of the Forum of Insurance Lawyers and the partner in charge of the case, was somewhat churlishly and dismissively entitled 'Latest CFA technical challenge'.

Until now, this is a charge that claimant solicitors have been able to throw at defendants, rather than the other way around, so it must have given Mr Parker some pleasure to do so.

But - while it was not a challenge on the merits of the actual case - with the best will in the world, questioning whether costs negotiators have rights of audience and whether their arrangements with insurers breach ancient champerty laws is a world away from the kind of technical challenges that some defendant firms have been bringing.

Exhibit one: the Conditional Fee Agreement Regulations 2000 state that a claimant solicitor must inform the client whether he or she has an interest in recommending a particular insurance product.

Aha, at least one defendant firm (not Beachcrofts) has said.

That means claimant solicitors also have to inform the client when they do not have such an interest, and the failure to do so - a failure most claimant solicitors can understandably plead guilty to - means the whole agreement is invalid.

The question is whether the Court of Appeal - which is inundated with costs cases - will give that argument the shortest of short shrifts next month.