header-logo header-logo

10 May 2012
Issue: 7513 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Court rules clients must pay up

Court of Appeal holds that solictor must be paid

A solicitor was contractually entitled to suspend work for a client who refused to pay an interim bill, the Court of Appeal has unanimously held in an important case on solicitors’ retainers.

Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor (CKFT) v Minkin [2012] EWCA Civ 546 arose from a decision of a costs judge, Master O’Hare, that the solicitor, CKFT’s Philip Cooper, was not entitled to costs, due to his unlawful termination of the retainer.

Gary Minkin had hired Cooper to act in divorce proceedings. Cooper estimated the case would cost £3,500 plus VAT but, due to an issue over tenants in the family home, the costs rose beyond this and Cooper presented Minkin with an interim bill of £5,500 plus VAT. Minkin refused to pay but expected Cooper to do further work on the retainer.

Cooper warned he would suspend work pending payment, Minkin refused to pay, and the retainer was terminated.

Master O’Hare, noting the presumption that a solicitor’s retainer to conduct litigation is an entire contract, held that CKFT, not the client, had terminated the retainer. CKFT had therefore terminated before completion and was not entitled to payment.

This decision was upheld on appeal by Mr Justice Cranston. However, the Court of Appeal has now overturned it, unanimously ruling that CKFT was entitled to suspend work, and that the client had terminated the retainer by expressing a lack of confidence.

Giving judgment, Lord Justice Ward said: “Not being prepared to act until money is paid shows a willingness to act when there is money on account.”

Issue: 7513 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
back-to-top-scroll