In Stoop (trading as Warwick Risk Management) v Johnson [2024] EWHC 286 (Ch), Laurie Scher acted for the Defendant, resisting a claim under a Damages Based Agreement.

The Claimant offered claims management services. He was also the Defendant’s boyfriend, and offered her assistance with her divorce from her ex-husband. They entered into a Damages Based Agreement concerning a dispute with Barclays over the former marital home. They then split up, and the Defendant terminated the agreement. She settled the claim with Barclays without the Claimant’s further involvement. The Claimant sought a 50% Success Fee under the agreement.

Laurie successfully argued that the Damages Based Agreement was invalid. It did not specify the reason for the level of the success fee, and related to family proceedings. The DBA contravened regulation 3(c) of the Damages Based Agreements Regulations 2013, and s58AA(4)(aa) Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. In any event, the Claimant’s role in bringing about the Barclays settlement was not sufficient to satisfy the causal requirement in the DBA. The claim was dismissed entirely.

Laurie Scher was instructed by Withers LLP.

The judgement can be viewed here.