Nath Solicitors presents an analysis of Reeves v Frain & McKinnon and the consequences for damage-based agreements.
Damages-Based Agreements (DBAs) provide clients with an alternative method of funding their legal matters. They work on a “no win, no fee” basis, where a legal representative receives an agreed percentage of the damages or proceeds if the case is successful, but nothing if the case is lost.
Reeves v Frain & McKinnon – A Brief Background
Louise Reeves challenged a 2014 will made by her father, seeking a declaration that it was valid, and took precedence, over an earlier 2012 will. Because the 2014 will was disputed, Judge Green declared it void and the 2012 version was used. Reeves was ordered to pay 70% of the defendants’ costs.
The defendants had entered into two DBAs with their solicitors which included split retainer arrangements: an initial private retainer, the costs incurred under a DBA, and a “new” private retainer post‑judgment.
Over several costs’ hearings, Reeves challenged the enforceability of the DBAs, arguing they breached the Damages‑Based Agreements Regulations 2013. In February 2025, costs Judge Brown held the DBAs unenforceable. The defendants appealed.
Judgment
Mr Justice Dexter Dias dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the DBAs were “unlawful and unenforceable,” further highlighting that “it would be wrong in principle to authorise irresolute, inconsistent and half-hearted compliance with the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 and the regulations.”
He also emphasised that the DBA Rules are clear, and non‑compliance cannot be brushed aside. As a result, the DBAs were considered void, and the defendants’ solicitor was not able to recover its claimed fees of over £1.6 million.
It is understood that a further appeal is being made by the defendants.
Need Advice? Contact us
If you need legal advice or assistance, please contact us on 0203 983 8278 or get in touch with the firm online.