header-logo header-logo

31 March 2011 / Claire Sanders
Issue: 7459 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

A cautionary tale

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll