The applicant lawyer brought a motion for a charging order over the proceeds of an after-the-event insurance policy to secure outstanding fee and disbursement accounts.
The court dismissed the motion, finding it was an impermissible collateral attack and an abuse of process, as the applicant's entitlement to the proceeds had already been decided in a previous application.
Furthermore, the court held that even if the motion was not an abuse of process, the applicant did not meet the test for a charging order because the proceeds were not property recovered or preserved through the instrumentality of the solicitor in the proceeding.
