Sign Up for our Free Newsletter
menu
Solicitors Journal Homepage
  • Home
  • News
  • Digital Edition
  • Practice Notes
    • Area of Law
      • Agricultural
      • ADR & Mediation
      • Asylum & Immigration
      • Aviation
      • Bankruptcy and Insolvency
      • Charities
      • Children
      • Clinical negligence
      • Commercial
      • Competition
      • Construction
      • Conveyancing
      • Costs
      • Crime
      • Data Protection
      • Discrimination
      • Education
      • Employment
      • Energy
      • EU
      • Expert witness
      • Family
      • Financial services & Tax
      • Health & Safety
      • Human rights
      • Inquest
      • Insurance
      • Intellectual property
      • Legal Aid
      • Litigation
      • Maritime
      • Media
      • Mergers & Acquisition
      • Pensions
      • Personal injury
      • Police & Prisons
      • Private client
      • Procedures
      • Professional negligence
      • Property
      • Public Law
      • Regulation
      • Residential
      • Road traffic
      • Vulnerable Clients
    • Management
      • Business Development and Marketing
      • Career development
      • Covid-19
      • Education & Training
      • Equality & diversity
      • Ethics and Compliance
      • Finance
      • Human Resources
      • Knowledge management
      • Leadership
      • Legal services
      • Marketing
      • Pro bono
      • Professional indemnity
      • Regulators
      • Risk & Compliance
      • Technical legal practice
      • Technology
      • Wellbeing
  • Opinion
  • Business
  • International
  • Interview
  • Features
  • More
    • About
    • Contact Us
    • Subscribe
    • Newsletter
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
    • Media Pack
    • Site Map
  • Contact Us
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Follow us:
    Twitter
    LinkedIn
© 2023 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal | Picture Credits: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors
Jean-Yves Gilg

Jean-Yves Gilg

EditorSolicitors Journal

Firm not entitled to fees after 'sacking' client

Mon Feb 21 2011News
Firm not entitled to fees after 'sacking' client

A firm which refused to continue acting for a client in a row over fees must repay the entire amount plus VAT, the High Court has ruled.

A firm which refused to continue acting for a client in a row over fees must repay the entire amount plus VAT, the High Court has ruled.

The court heard that the firm, in Hampstead, London, told a client that its estimated fee for a matrimonial hearing would be £3,500 plus VAT.

Delivering judgment in Minkin v Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor [2011] EWHC 177 (QB), Mr Justice Cranston said the firm sent Gary Minkin an interim bill for almost £5,500 plus VAT. Minkin paid the firm £3,000, but the firm replied that it could not continue to act unless it received the rest.

In September last year, Master O'Hare held that Minkin had reasonable justification to delay payment because the invoice exceeded the estimate, but the firm had no right to suspend work.

Cranston J said the master concluded the firm terminated its retainer by refusing to do further work without payment, amounting to a repudiatory breach of contract.

'The breach was a serious breach,' Cranston J said. 'The firm 'downed tools', in particular in refusing to contact the court, thereby destroying the prospects of a continuing relationship with Mr Minkin.'

The firm was ordered to refund all the amounts paid, less counsel's fees. Upholding Master O'Hare's ruling, Cranston J said termination of retainers had to be on 'reasonable notice', under section 65(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974. He said that the firm's interim bill of £5,472.50 exceeded the estimate of £3,500 plus VAT by a 'considerable margin'.

The firm knew that Minkin had 'limited funds' and yet gave him no advanced warning that the estimate was being exceeded, Cranston J said.

'The first time he knew that this had occurred was when he received the invoice.'

He went on: 'The outcome may seem harsh on the firm. But the fact is that it should have been clearer in its retainer letter as to the nature of the engagement.'

Cranston J said the firm 'must then consider whether, in the circumstances, the client has reasonable justification for not paying and whether it would be reasonable to terminate the contract for non-payment. And it can only do that with reasonable notification.'

Cranston J dismissed the firm's appeal.

Richard Clarke, joint senior partner of Routh Clarke in Leighton Buzzard, Bedfordshire, acted for Minkin.

'My experience is that solicitors seeking to terminate their representation do not generally appreciate what is involved,' Clarke said.

'Often the client care letter fails to set out what the circumstances are entitling them to come off the record.

'One letter I have come across said only: 'If we decide not to represent you any further, we will inform you of that'.'

Clarke said the law firm should have written to the client and explained clearly what needed to be done and what the consequences were of not doing it.

'If a client says he wants to challenge a bill, you cannot turn round and say 'you're sacked'.

Clarke added that the costs incurred by both sides in the litigation over Minchin's bill had already reached a sum that was ten times more than the bill.

Tags:
AdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisementAdvertisement
Latest News

Legal Services Board survey on tech innovation in the legal services sector

Tue Jun 06 2023

Prime Minister details progress made to stop illegal border crossings

Tue Jun 06 2023

Law Society and Bar Council sign MoU with the Bar Council of India

Tue Jun 06 2023

APPG for Crypto and Digital Assets calls for urgent regulation in the UK

Mon Jun 05 2023

UN Child Rights Committee publishes report on the UK

Mon Jun 05 2023

Regulator of Social Housing publishes latest financial trends report

Mon Jun 05 2023

SRA details factors influencing outcomes for Black, Asian and minority ethnic candidates

Fri Jun 02 2023

Competition and Markets Authority publishes green heating and insulation sector report

Fri Jun 02 2023

Sentencing Council publishes new business plan

Fri Jun 02 2023
Featured
Saudi Arabia’s evolving business laws
InternationalTue Jun 06 2023
Saudi Arabia’s evolving business laws

Dr Hamid Harasani and Samaher Alsobeihy explore how Saudi Arabia has reformed its companies law per its Vision 2030 ambitions

Love-bombing recognised as a sign of abuse
Practice NotesMon Jun 05 2023
Love-bombing recognised as a sign of abuse

Samantha Farndale explores how family lawyers can recognise and address love-bombing in abusive relationships

Personal data protection in the UAE
InternationalThu Jun 01 2023
Personal data protection in the UAE

Ashish Mehta examines the data protection regime under the new federal personal data protection law in the UAE

Navigating India’s investment landscape
InternationalThu May 25 2023
Navigating India’s investment landscape

While India offers many attractive investment opportunities, there are various regulatory factors to be aware of

SJ Interview: James Fulforth
SJ InterviewThu May 18 2023
SJ Interview: James Fulforth

The Solicitors Journal spoke to James Fulforth, Kingsley Napley’s newly appointed Senior Partner, about his experiences in the law, his thoughts on the UK’s tech sector and what he hopes to achieve in his new role

Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate
ForewordTue Apr 25 2023
Long-awaited reports and controversial bills dominate

Sophie Cameron takes a look at the news in the April Foreword