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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
Lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) are not ‘set and forget’ documents. In this week's NLJ, Ann Stanyer of Wedlake Bell urges practitioners to review LPAs every five years and after major life changes
back-to-top-scroll