Gill -v- Heer Manak : termination of retainer by solicitors without reasonable notice results in no entitlement to charge


​In an appeal judgment handed down yesterday the High Court found that where solicitors terminated their retainer without reasonable notice, they were not entitled to payment of any fee.

Mr.Gill had become embroiled as Defendant in complex litigation in May 2013 and had instructed Heer Manak pursuant to a written retainer dated 7th June 2013. The litigation proceeded, including a case management conference on 20th December 2013, at which directions were made to ensure that the parties were ready for trial by no later than the end of April 2014. No mention was made by Heer Manak at the hearing on 20th December of any difficulties with the firm, however on or shortly after 27th December 2013, Mr.Gill learned that they had closed and were unable to represent him further. During the course of the retainer Mr.Gill had paid some £15,000 to Heer Manak on account of their fees and disbursements, including Counsel's fees.

It was said that the closure of the firm was due to their inability to secure professional indemnity insurance. They had entered an "extended policy period" after 1st October 2013, and had 90 days in which to secure cover, or face immediate closure on or before 29th December 2013.  

In late January 2014 Mr.Gill was contacted by the solicitor who had been dealing with his case at Heer Manak (also a Mr.Gill), who had now found employment at Lexton Law Solicitors, who obtained the file and completed the litigation.

In June 2016 (following an unsuccessful attempt by Lexton Law to include the fees of Heer Manak in their own bill) Heer Manak delivered a bill seeking total costs of just under £31k. Following a preliminary issue hearing before Master Simons in March 2017 the SCCO dealing with the termination point, at which the Master found that termination without notice was reasonable in the circumstances, the bill was eventually assessed by Master Brown in September 2017 (Master Simons having by then retired), with minimal reductions.

In yesterday's judgment Mr.Justice Walker found that the termination without notice was not reasonable and that Master Simons, who had had no factual evidence from the Defendant in relation to the circumstances leading up to the closure, was not entitled to draw the inferences that he had.

The case was dealt with by our Mr.Carlisle, through our sister company Deep Blue Costs, with representation by Robin Dunne of Hardwicke.

A full copy of the judgment is available below.

File Name: Gill--v--Heer-Manak-2018-EWHC-2881-QB
File Size: 27 kb
Download File
Online will providers 77% cheaper than solicitors ...
Cash Accounts - the least understood part of the a...

Related Posts

News Search

News Tag Cloud

Administrators Assessment ATE premium Bill Brethertons LLP BT-2 Solicitors Camps Solicitors Carpenters Cash Account Children Claims Management Companies Client Care Letters Closure Cold Callers Collier Law Commercial Comparison Compensation Conditional Fee Agreement Coops Law Cordell & Co Costs Estimates costs law Court CPR 46.9(3) Damages debts Deduction Delivery Up Disclosure Divorce Emerald Law Solicitors Employment Tribunal cases Equitas Solicitors Estates Exempt Fairwoods Solicitors Family Fees Final Bills Fixed Costs Fletchers Solicitors Forster Dean Garvins Law Gowing Law HCC Solicitors Holiday Holiday Sickness Claim Inheritance Act Insolvency Interim Statute Bills Irwin Mitchell LLP JC&A Solicitors Keith Smart & Co Lance Mason landmark case Lawyers Legal challenges Legal Ombudsman Legend Legal LIP's Litigants in person Litigation Litigation Friend Matrix Solicitors Michael Lewin Solicitors Michael Rose & Baylis Solicitors Money Laundering Regulations Motorbike Accident No Win No Fee Overcharging partners Personal Injury Pilkington Shaw Solicitors Price Probate Progressive Solicitors Proportionality Protected Party Reasonable Notice rebuttable presumption Refund Representation Retainer Richard Slade & Company Right to conduct litigation in respect of costs Rights of Audience Road Traffic Accident Rotherham s.68 Solicitors Act s.74(3) Solicitors Act 1974 Scott Rees & Co Senior Courts Costs Office Seth Lovis & Co Simpson Millar LLP six minute units solicitor solicitors SRA Statute Bills Success Fee success fees Supreme Court tax tax management Termination Terms of Business Thorneycrofts Time limits trades Union Unison Transparency True Solicitors Turner & White Solicitors Unusual Items Viceroy Law

About Us

We are a team of legal costs experts with over 60 years' experience.

We have dealt with costs arising from almost every legal specialism.

We have conducted cases challenging solicitor's costs at all levels up to and including the Court of Appeal.

We are not part of a firm of solicitors and are therefore entirely independent.

Latest News