Contract
Glaser KC and another v Atay [2023] EWHC 2539 (KB), [2023] All ER (D) 84 (Oct)
The King’s Bench Division allowed the defendant’s appeal and dismissed the claimants’ cross-appeal, concerning the judge’s decision that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the Act) precluded the claimants from relying on a contractual term relating to payment (the payment term) in a written agreement (the agreement) entered into under the Public Access Scheme, but that the defendant should, nevertheless, pay 70% of what would otherwise be the contractual sum due by way of quantum meruit. The claimant barristers sued the defendant, a former client in matrimonial proceedings, for payment of outstanding fees under the terms of the agreement. The defendant argued that the application of the Act meant that the claimants were entitled to nothing, in circumstances where the trial in the matrimonial proceedings had adjourned and the defendant had indicated that she no longer wished to instruct them. The claimants argued that the Act did not apply and, even if it did, they were, nevertheless, entitled to payment in full. The court held, among
