Justice Jeremy Stuart-Smith, penning the primary judgment, likened the act of excising the contentious provisions to changing the DNA of the original contract. Simply put, by removing the linchpin that made the deal a “no win, no fee” arrangement, the contract’s entire identity would shift, rendering it alien to its original intent.
Contractual Dynamics and the Unyielding Verdict
The appellate panel emphasized that even if they had the leverage to amend the contract, they would have still rejected the appeal based on ethical principles. They elucidated that sanctioning such an amendment could perilously place a client in a position of footing a bill equivalent to a regular legal retainer, thereby obliterating the essence of a “no win, no fee” pledge.
Adding salt to Volterra Fietta’s wounds, the court rebuffed their appeal for quantum meruit costs, a principle where fees are determined based on actual work accomplished. In an eloquent agreement, Justice Geraldine Andrews articulated that the law firm cannot sneakily claim payments through a backdoor route when the main entrance has been firmly shut.
