Report comment

Having now read the decision (a link would have been helpful), I agree that Howell Jones were hard done by. The article implies that the client wasn't fully informed of his options but plainly he was. I think HJ gave up too easily in admitting a breach of O(3.4) (though who can blame them when faced with such an oppressive costs regime). Both the client and HJ wanted to resile from the agreement -- surely their interests were perfectly aligned up until the point at which the court ruled that the client could not resile.

It is also interesting to note that the court did not consider the initial advice was negligent and the second barrister involved did not consider there to be a conflict, which rather suggests that HJ were hung out to dry by the first barrister.