header-logo header-logo

Solicitors

16 February 2011
Issue: 7453 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Minkin v Cawdery Kaye Fireman & Taylor [2011] EWHC 177 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 82 (Feb)

The defendant solicitors exceeded the fee estimate they had given the claimant, and the claimant refused to pay. The firm then stated that it would no longer act for the claimant. The claimant applied for a detailed assessment of the outstanding bills under s 70 of the Solicitors Act 1974.

The master found that the claimant had a reasonable justification for delaying payment, and that the termination of the retainer by the firm amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract. On appeal the court ruled that it could only interfere with the master’s decision if it was satisfied that his conclusion lay outside the bounds within which reasonable disagreement was possible. Solicitors could terminate a retainer for good reason and on reasonable notice.

At common law, it was not good reason that a client had not paid part of the profit costs as an ordinary claim or statutory appeal proceeded. If solicitors wrongly terminated on that basis they could not sue

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

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Hill Dickinson—Paul Matthews, Liz Graham & Sarah Pace

Leeds office strengthened with triple partner hire

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Clarke Willmott—Oksana Howard

Corporate lawyer joins as partner in London office

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll