header-logo header-logo

Solicitors’ equitable lien rights upheld

16 March 2022
Issue: 7971 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail
A law firm has narrowly won its argument about the limits of its equitable lien over its fees, in a case which drew a mix of judgments from the Supreme Court

The Court handed down a 3-2 majority in favour of the firm, in Bott & Co Solicitors v Ryanair DAC [2022] UKSC 8.

Bott & Co Solicitors handles flight delay compensation claims on a ‘no win no fee’ basis, and would send a letter before action to the relevant airline and ask for payment to be made to the firm’s client account. If paid, the firm would check the payment, deduct its fee and pay the rest to the client. If the airline ignored or disputed the claim, the firm would consider issuing proceedings.

In February 2016, however, Ryanair stopped this practice and instead began dealing directly with the clients and paying compensation directly to them. Bott & Co issued proceedings against the airline, one of the issues being whether the firm had an equitable lien over its fees.

The case concerned the limits to the principle under which a solicitor can ask the court to grant an equitable lien in order to protect his entitlement to fees as against his client.

It was dismissed by the High Court and Court of Appeal before succeeding at the Supreme Court with the majority judges, Lord Burrows, Lady Arden and Lord Briggs giving three separate judgments and Lord Leggatt and Lady Rose jointly dissenting.

NLJ columnist Dominic Regan said: “Lord Hope when in the court aspired to the delivery of one judgment wherever possible.

‘Here, hilariously we see four judgments from a five-member bench. Lord Briggs nailed it when he identified the need for legal advice in low value cases. The increase in the personal injury small claims limit next month is a timely reminder of how challenging it is to secure a just outcome when costs are miserable or non- existent.’

Issue: 7971 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Costs
printer mail-details

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