header-logo header-logo

08 December 2011
Issue: 7493 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Lien refused

Solicitor has no more right to assert a lien to secure his fees than his client has to use the money

A solicitor has no more right to assert a lien to secure his fees than his client has to use the money, the Court of Appeal has held.

In Withers v Langbar International [2011] EWCA Civ 1419, [2011] All ER (D) 22 (Dec) Withers’ clients, Rybak, had been sued by Langbar and settled for £30m, which was almost equal to Rybak’s worldwide assets. Under the settlement agreement, a property in Monaco would be sold and €7.6m paid from the proceeds to Langbar, regardless of the sale price. A court order provided that the proceeds would be paid into an escrow account.

The property sold for €13m, which left about €5m in the account.

Rybak started a new action concerning the settlement against Langbar, who counterclaimed. Langbar succeeded to the tune of €3.8m, plus €0.9m in costs. Rybak applied for an order that £400,000 be released from the account to pay Withers’ legal costs. Withers asserted a lien or equitable charge over the money in the account. The court held that Withers had a common law lien over the money claimed, but dismissed the claim that Withers had an equitable charge. Langbar appealed and Withers cross-appealed.

Langbar successfully argued that the money was in the account and would remain available subject to the court’s directions.

Upholding Langbar’s appeal, Lord Justice Lloyd said: “The solicitor can have no better right to assert a lien over the money than his client has to use the money for payment of the sums due to the solicitor…it was still necessary for the Rybaks to obtain the consent of Langbar to any withdrawal from the account of any sum to be paid out by way of legal expenses...That seems to me to make it impossible to contend that the money held in the account at that stage was available for payment of legal costs by the Rybaks. If it was not, then I do not see how it can have been subject to a lien to secure the payment of such costs on the part of Withers.”

Issue: 7493 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Birketts—Nathan Evans

Commercial and technology team in Cambridge strengthened by partner hire

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Andrew & Andrew Solicitors—Shikha Datta

Hampshire firm appoints head of new family department

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Latham & Watkins—Sarah Lightdale

Firm strengthens securities practice with partner return

NEWS

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
back-to-top-scroll