Report comment

If only people bothered to read the judgment. In Plevin, both sides agreed a CFA could be assigned in principle (paragraph 3). The issue the Court had to decide therefore was what the meaning of 'Work In Progress' was under the agreement and therefore whether this particular assignment worked, not whether assignments generally were lawful. That argument will be for another day - Budana or otherwise - as the previous comment (from a different Anon) noted.
Much more important for Claimants was the very positive news on top up ATEs and extending your CFAs to cover appeals - but you only get to that properly if you actually read the judgment and not just someone's tweets.