header-logo header-logo

Put pen to paper

14 June 2012 / Simon Gibbs
Issue: 7518 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs
printer mail-detail

The absence of a written retainer can cause costs chaos, says Simon Gibbs

 

A useful reminder of the importance of understanding the basics of costs law comes  in the form of the decision of Mrs Justice Lang in Fladgate LLP v Harrison [2012] EWHC 67 (QB), [2012] All ER (D) 45 (Feb).
 
The defendant had instructed the claimant firm of solicitors to undertake certain work. The claimant sent the defendant a draft engagement letter setting out the terms of the instructions and asking the defendant to inform them if the letter was incorrect in any way. No response was made. A final version of the engagement letter was subsequently sent to the defendant, together with the firms’ terms of business and the defendant was invited to complete and sign the letter. No response was received to the letter and the claimant continued to act for the defendant. Various interim invoices were sent to the defendant. 

No written contract

In due course, the defendant
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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll