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

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott—Anita Rasaratnam

Clarke Willmott strengthens social housing development offering with senior London appointment

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers & Hamlins—David Meecham

Trowers strengthens Birmingham real estate team with partner hire

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan—Jennifer Ray & Louise Culleton

Blake Morgan expands private client and regulatory teams with new legal directors

NEWS
A mood of cautious optimism has enveloped the criminal law sector following indications the Prime Minister may abandon planned jury reforms
Helping to source the services and providers you need
The Senior Courts Costs Office has clarified that judges conducting detailed assessment proceedings cannot order security for costs—a ruling that may leave successful parties exposed to further litigation expense
Rejecting a generous settlement can prove an expensive mistake, as two recent high-profile cases demonstrate
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) continues to show that failing to disclose regulatory issues can attract harsher consequences than the original misconduct itself
back-to-top-scroll