header-logo header-logo

16 March 2022
Issue: 7971 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Costs
printer mail-detail

Solicitors’ equitable lien rights upheld

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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll