The Claimant brought a claim against the Defendant which was settled; the Claimant obtained an order for costs on the indemnity basis.

The Claimant had entered into a CFA with his solicitors, who were on the Accident Line panel. The attendance note disclosed by the Claimant's solicitors provided :
"I recommend Accident Line as legal expense insurers. I have no interest in recommending them. They are, however, administered by the Law Society and it is my practice to recommend them as a first option".

The Defendant contended that the Claimant's solicitor had an indirect financial interest in recommending the Accident Line policy namely maintaining referrals from Accident Line. Following Garrett v Halton Borough Council [2007] 1 AllER 147 this was a discloseable interest. The failure to disclose this rendered the CFA unenforceable.

The Claimant conceded that there could, in theory, be a discloseable interest but that in this case the interest was de minimis and so did not fall to be disclosed. It was further argued that even if there had been a breach of regulation 4, it was not material as in the Hollins sense, given the size of the interest.

Held :

There was a breach of the regulations in that the solicitors did not make it clear to the Claimant that there was an obligation on them to recommend the Accident Line Scheme. However, as the Claimant was an established client of the firm, had used the same solicitors to bring a personal injury claim using the very same policy on a previous occasion, the disclosure would not have made any difference to the Claimant.

The Costs Judge also held that the interest that the Claimant's Solicitor had in the Accident Line Protect Scheme was de minimis.

The CFA was declared enforeable.