Urbaniak-Bak v Prail

The appeal in *Urbaniak-Bak v Prail* concerned a dispute over a costs agreement entered into between a solicitor and their client. The client, who was not a native English speaker, had engaged the solicitor on a 'no win, no fee' basis. The central issue on appeal was the validity of this costs agreement, particularly in light of the client's English language proficiency and the inclusion of disbursements.

The court was required to determine whether the costs agreement was valid and enforceable, notwithstanding the client's limited English comprehension. This involved considering whether the agreement met the statutory requirements for costs agreements, particularly concerning clarity and fairness to a client who may not fully understand its terms. The court also had to assess the implications of the 'no win, no fee' arrangement and the inclusion of disbursements within this context.

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding the costs agreement to be valid. The reasoning likely centred on the solicitor's obligations to ensure the client understood the agreement, even if the client was not a native English speaker. The court would have applied principles of contract law and relevant legislation governing solicitor-client costs agreements, focusing on whether the agreement was sufficiently clear and whether the client had been adequately informed of its terms and implications. The dismissal of the appeal indicated that the court found no error in the lower court's assessment of the agreement's validity.

Consequently, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.