The Court of Appeal refused an extension of time to comply with a springing order, holding that none of the proposed grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of success and there was no point resuscitating a meritless appeal. On the substantive issues, the Court confirmed that a client's agreement to pay a lesser amount in immediate settlement of disputed legal costs constituted good consideration for the law firm's promise to accept that amount, both because it settled a bona fide dispute and because it involved earlier payment of a lesser sum than would otherwise have been due following a costs assessment. The Court also held that filing an unconditional appearance in costs assessment proceedings does not waive a party's right to rely on a prior accord and satisfaction, as an unconditional appearance involves no implicit acceptance that the claim has merit — it merely submits to jurisdiction.
The full text is available to signed-in members.