Conducting and settling litigation is not a s.328 POCA arrangement (Bowman v Fels)

In Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226 the Court of Appeal held that s.328 is not intended to cover or affect the ordinary conduct of litigation by legal professionals, from the issue of proceedings to final disposal by judgment. The court extended this to consensual steps, including a settlement, taken in an ordinary litigious context, because consensual resolution is an integral part of litigation. It distinguished a settlement that is a sham or mere pretext for dealing with criminal property. Here the proposed settlement genuinely reflects the merits of Daniela's claim, so Mehmet does not become concerned in a s.328 arrangement by conducting the claim or concluding the settlement, and he need not make an authorised disclosure or seek consent before doing so.

Why A is wrong: Bowman v Fels held s.328 does not apply to the ordinary conduct of litigation, so no disclosure and consent is needed before taking steps.

Why C is wrong: The court held that consensual steps and genuine settlements within litigation are also outside s.328.

Why D is wrong: There is no duty to tell the court or the opponent of his suspicion; doing so could also breach client confidentiality.

Why E is wrong: Because s.328 does not bite on ordinary litigation, continuing to act does not involve him in an arrangement, so he need not cease acting.