© Getty images
If the essence of a contentious business agreement is certainty, why are we still confused? Victoria Morrison-Hughes
- Broadfield Law UK LLP & Barnes held that the agreed retainer was not a Contentious Business Agreement (CBA).
- Timing of the ruling coincides with Civil Justice Council proposals to overhaul solicitor-client costs billing system.
- Any new ‘fair and reasonable’ test must retain the principle of informed consent to protect all parties.
‘The essence of a CBA is certainty’, concluded Mr Justice Mann in Wilson v Specter Partnership [2007] EWHC 133 (Ch). It is a sentiment shared by Lady Justice Andrews in her recent judgment in the Court of Appeal in Broadfield Law UK LLP (formerly BDB Pitmans LLP) v Barnes [2026] EWCA Civ 698.
In Wilson, Mann J relied on the decision of Chamberlain v Boodle and King [1982] 3 All ER 188, a decision more widely known to the costs world in relation to the delivery of invoices. In this judgment, Lord Denning determined that an agreement was not a contentious business agreement (CBA), as it was ‘insufficiently
