header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2011 / Claire Sanders
Issue: 7459 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

A cautionary tale

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Claire Sanders warns solicitors to comply with their client retainer or face the consequences

A refusal to continue working for a client until he paid outstanding fees amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract by solicitors the consequence of which was that they were not entitled to recover any of their fees. The stark warning from the High Court in the case of Minkin v Cawdery Fireman & Taylor [2011] EWHC 177, [2011] All ER (D) 82 (Feb) is that solicitors must comply with the provisions in their client retainer letters and that retainer letters must be in clear terms.

Facts

In Minkin the claimant, instructed the appellant solicitors (the firm) to represent him in matrimonial proceedings, in particular at the return hearing of an application by his wife for an occupation order and non-molestation order. The day before the hearing it transpired that the claimant’s wife had left the matrimonial home and rented it to tenants.

The firm advised the client about this and corresponded with the tenants agents. The occupation order

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll