header-logo header-logo

Disputed retainer

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll