header-logo header-logo

12 February 2009 / Jonathan Pratt
Issue: 7356 / Categories: Opinion , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Disputed retainer

In billing disputes is the client always right? asks Jonathan Pratt

'It is important for solicitors that the terms of their retainer are agreed in writing'

In the case of Sibley & Co v Reachbyte Limited (1) and Kris Motor Spares Limited (2) [2008] EWHC 2665, Mr Justice Peter Smith heard an appeal from the decision of Deputy Master Hoffman to disallow £131,840 of counsel’s fees on a detailed assessment. Smith J’s decision to uphold the fi rst instance decision was, in part, based on his fi nding that, where there is a factual dispute as to the extent of a retainer between solicitor and client, the starting point is that the client’s view ought to prevail.

Background
In or around June 2000, Mr Krishnani approached Sibley & Co (Sibley) on behalf of Reachbyte Limited and Kris Motor Spares Limited to obtain advice about a dispute with Brewin Dolphin. That dispute eventually ended in a drop hands settlement shortly before trial was due to commence in March 2007.
Mr Krishnani challenged Sibley’s last bill of £479,380,07.

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

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Kennedys—Milan Devani

Chief information officer appointment strengthens technology leadership

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Maguire Family Law—Hannah Barlow & Sophie Hughes

Firm strengthens Wilmslow team with two solicitor appointments

DWF—Ian Plumley

DWF—Ian Plumley

Londoninsurance and reinsurance practice announces partner appointment

NEWS
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
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll