What are the consequences of naming one party as the opponent in a CFA but then succeeding in the claim against another party?
This is a long-running issue with various non-binding and conflicting decisions on the issue including Brierley v Prescott  EWHC 90062 (Costs), Law v Liverpool City Council  EWHC 90020 (Costs), Scott v Transport for London (2009) (unreported) and Brookes v DC Leisure Management Ltd & Anor  EW Misc 17 (CC).
Deputy Master Friston has recently handed down judgment in another case addressing this issue in Hailey v Assurance Mutuelle Des Motards (SCCO, 2015). Although the facts of the case were rather unusual, the reasoning adopted is of more general application.
One more case to throw into the mix.